Another blow against the faithful ordered by Rome: D. Savannah

July is a month of special devotion to the Most Precious Blood of Jesus.

Let us ask Jesus, High Priest and Victim, to wash us in the Blood and Water from His side as a laver of consolation and strength.  Let us ask Him to take the sufferings of those who will now be afflicted by the continuing persecution from Rome and from bishops and to transform them into graces and great spiritual fruits.

While the following is NOT the topic of the intention for which I ask you to pray HERE, I sense that it is strongly connected, since we are a arrived at a fateful anniversary.

Read and weep for the faithful of Savannah.

“Mass in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council”.

That’s quite simply a false statement.  The Novus Ordo is NOT what Sacrosanctum Concilium decreed.

But…  just keep repeating it and repeating it and repeating it.

Watch for more of this. Rome will target the faithful for more suffering in their spirit of accompaniment.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Traditionis custodes and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Rob83 says:

    It seems it is better not to ask. The date is curious too – Saturday after the Ascension. What, is Rome hoping the traditional Mass will ascend to heaven and disappear with our Lord next year?

    Mass stones were once widely used when the secular authorities were trying to suppress the Mass. Ironic that they may come into use once more due to Rome itself trying to suppress the Mass.

  2. ChiaraDiAssisi says:

    Oh my goodness. Our brothers and sisters, the Priests of God must be suffering so much with this blow. This really makes my heart ache for them. My goodness. Prayers!!!

  3. Lurker 59 says:

    It seems to me that one starts quickly stringing together the language of “encounter”, ‘”response”, “relationship”, “mystery (English sense as opposed the Latin/Greek sense of the term)”, “accompaniment”, “walking together”, “oneness”, one really has gone far afield. To close on “thanks for whispering my name” affirms the indication.

    The problem with buzzword theology is that it comes off as vapid and phony as any cooperate messaging; it is meant to sound good without being good.

    The thing about Christ is that He is a real person just like the people in the pews are real. The letter doesn’t give the sense that the author(s) see either as real — what is real is the subjective emotional response from the encounter – i.e. a sort of awestruck celebratory hopefulness/wonderment.

    The paragraph “I am grateful” is the meat of the document. It is the intent (of Rome?) that there be no more TLM by May 2023, the bishop will see to it, and that the faithful are pretty much to ‘suck it up buttercup”. This is not pastoral, not catechetical, and above all not the language of a father who loves his children.

    A father who loves his children, who sees that they are being treated cruelly by another, will shield them with his very life — will be Christlike to them.

    That is not this letter.

  4. maternalView says:

    I don’t know what to think. I am frightened. I don’t live there but can’t help but think this sort of thing is going to roll through every diocese eventually.

    I’m a more recent TLM attendee (since late 2021) and I’m feeling as if the doors are closing on me.

    Once I started attending the TLM, the NO paled in comparison. I recognize the validity of NO but it’s like eating at Olive Garden after having eaten in Italy.

    I already, along with others, have to endure a once- a- month NO on the 1st Sunday of the month – as if we’re children being forced to eat our spinach. I can’t decide if this is a punishment or just old fashion bullying.I don’t see a benefit. It seems mean. Usually you don’t have to force people to see the beautiful.

    When is the time for the push back?

  5. Ipsitilla says:

    Speaking of the inauspicious anniversary, I thought a modification of the Dies Irae seemed appropriate:

    Day of spite and petty malice!
    When a document most callous
    Came forth from the papal palace

    Oh, what nuisance it inventeth,
    And what rancor it fermenteth,
    As the faithful it tormenteth…

    (In the spirit of the original, it goes on, here.)

  6. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Parsing this a bit:

    “for specific parish churches”: did Bishop Stephen specify the ‘successful’ Churches?

    Similarly: “until May 20, 2023”: did Bishop Stephen specify the period?

    And “on a weekly basis” and “on a monthly basis”: did Bishop Stephen specify the frequency?

    With reference, e.g., to “the 1pm Mass”, (1) did Bishop Stephen specify this celebration, and (2) what wider diurnal implications do those frequencies have? E.g., should “the appropriate and intimate place” not prove capacious enough for the numbers of Faithful wishing to be present “at the 1pm Mass”, how many additional “Masses according to the Missale Romanum of 1962” could be scheduled on that day of “weekly” celebration?

  7. Orual says:

    I realize this is the fate of every TLM, no matter how remote or inconvenient the time of Mass may be or how harmless the people attending. Pope Francis will bring the hammer down everywhere until he has crushed all of his perceived enemies.

    Sorry, but I’m not going to be ‘accompanied’ back to the New Order Mass with its ordinary extraordinary ministers of holy communion, altar girls, communion in the hand, hip priests, horrible music, and sloppy liturgy and bad theology. No attempt is even being made to address the many problems of the NO, which is the reason so many of us left it for the TLM. They are acting in bad faith and I refuse to go along with their plans.

  8. APX says:

    I have a friend who’s convinced it’s the Pope’s goal to drive Traditionalists to the SSPX and then excommunicate them all.

  9. AnthonyJ says:

    Will this be the fate of the TLM in every diocese in the world? I don’t want to be pessimistic, but I would imagine this won’t only apply to Savannah if this came directly from Rome.

  10. James C says:

    “accompany”! ?

    so traditional Catholics get “accompanied” to the Novus Ordo, no exceptions

    while active homosexuals and people in adulterous relationships and abortion-loving politicians get “accompanied” to the communion buffet line with hands outstretched.

    This is Bergoglianism.

  11. Kathleen10 says:

    It is time for a boycott, when this comes. A total, immediate, boycott. No attendance. No money. No pledges fulfilled. Nada. Perhaps some of our fellow Catholics in the NO will support us as well. Even NO Catholics can plainly see the malice in such a cruel and pointless act. They follow a demon, but still, they are not entirely lost as he is.
    This must be championed and organized. It must be total and must stick. Put a hurt on parishes, leave empty churches, no money collected, no one in the seats.
    This is the only thing these demons understand, public relations illusions, and the money they whore for. We have one chance, if God does not avert this. Thus far we have done little. Mewings don’t matter to these men, mothers marching around the globe don’t matter. They adore, worship, and venerate MONEY.
    Hit them where it hurts them. For once.

    And we will never, NEVER, go Novus Ordo. Why would anyone want to be part of such a satanic cult as the evildoers in Rome. They have earned our loathing.

    [Anger can induce people to write things they might not otherwise write, when calmer. I know an awful lot of priests who say the Novus Ordo. I think they are not part of a satanic cult. When I came into the Catholic Church, it was through the Novus Ordo at St. Agnes in St. Paul in the heyday of the Schuler pastorate. I don’t think I was inducted into a satanic cult.]

  12. Kathleen10 says:

    @ APX…that is the obvious plan, I agree.
    Whatever ravings emit from Rome, for our part, will not disturb our conscience one iota, excommunicate me! Do it today! What has Rome to do with me, at this point. If we were standing near the Judgment Seat, all together, I would be trying to stand as far from the men of Rome as I could. These are the days that try men’s souls, but if we use our spiritual discernment, that God gave us to withstand these days, it will not be hard. He told us we would know our shepherd’s voice, and a false shepherd we would not follow. We need to use that discernment now, don’t despair, not at all, rejoice! We get to follow Christ in hard times. Glory! It will only be to our shame if we allow them to steal our joy, or God forbid, if we capitulate. NEVER.

  13. Rob83 says:


    While things here have not yet come to such a pass, I would much rather go on a bit of subversive offense.

    The bishop wants the traditional folks to head to the NO? Okay, but we are a community. And since we are already used to traveling a way for Mass, pick a different church, go there all as one on Sunday, dressed and veiled to the nines. Present for communion kneeling, there’s strength in numbers. Plant things like a box of free veils, pamphlets, maybe have someone leaflet cars if so inclined with some traditional stuff. Write letters to the pastor either praising the traditional stuff seen or point out things for correction.

    Rinse and repeat somewhere else next week. There are over 100 churches in this diocese, and at most Masses, we would make up a majority of the faithful attending if we all came as one.

    Why do this? To sow seeds for one. A lot of people might not know what is going on and some traditional literature or veils may make an impact, even if only on a few (and you would be amazed how many have found the TLM the last 2 years even without any sort of coordinated campaign to do so). Second, this may well be annoying to certain types, but what can they say when you cheerfully say that you’re just following the bishop’s request? Certain priests may well go to the bishop and ask that the trads be given their own place just to get them out of their hair.

    Not saying this is the only response, but I am thinking here of the crafty Sir Humphrey who usually undermined Hacker while saying “yes minister” with a smile.

  14. John Malloy says:

    They are probably hoping for a gradual transition. I would attend and support the traditional mass until they change the locks on the building. Then take action as necessity requires.

  15. Chrisc says:

    I don’t know whether the bishop was being malicious or incredibly naive. Normally, my MO is to not presume uncharity if ignorance suffices for an explanation. But how naive can people be?! Rome was perfectly fine with shuttering churches during the pandemic, and that involved a liturgy they supposedly value. The TLM folk? Of course, they will be ok with kicking trads to the curb! Why any person would write to Rome to bring the Eye of Sauron’s gaze onto their land is beyond me.

    If Rome or a bishop says x, then do it, however you must. But certainly don’t stroll down to the chancery or write a dicastry and ask! Good grief.

  16. summorumpontificum777 says:

    See, the biggest problem here is that this bishop in Savannah wrote to Rome asking for permission to continue the TLM in this or that church. Of course, the response is going to be along the lines of “shut down some now and shut down the rest later.” That’s axiomatic at this point. With all due respect, if a bishop is in any way sympathetic to his TLM-going flock, he’s going to keep his head down and let them do what they’re doing without seeking the counsel of the boys at the Vatican.

  17. Fr. James Power says:

    I haven’t thoroughly read TC since it initially came out. I recall that bishops are expected to ask permission before they authorize newly ordained priests to offer the older Mass. I don’t, however, recall bishops having to ask permission for anything else. Does anyone know the context of this exchange between Bishop Parkes and Rome?

  18. Kathleen10 says:

    I know good and faithful NO priests as well. There are so many and they have been a profound blessing in my life. I owe my conversion to them. I did not intend to include them in my comment whatsoever. I am sorry I did not clarify. It is precisely these good and faithful NO priests who are caught in these diabolical crosshairs. My heart goes out to them for the heavy burden they must pay, far beyond the pain for the laity. It will not be their doing if things deteriorate from here.

  19. Tman says:

    Roe down, VII to go.

  20. Danteewoo says:

    Right, Fr. Z. There are very many good priests who say the Novus Ordo. They do their best. I will be playing organ at three Novus Ordo Masses this weekend. Not my first choice, but the local FSSP made it very easy for me to walk away from their parish years ago. And I get my Latin Mass anyway, a once-a-month High Mass at a diocesan church. I’ve got it made, but I have great sympathy for Catholics who live in Chicago or Savannah or other pain-inflicting dioceses.

  21. robtbrown says:

    Re: Mass in conformity with Vat II:

    There are texts in Sacrosanctum Concilium that can be used to justify everything
    from tango and clown masses to exclusively using the 1962 Missal.

  22. Why did he write to the Holy See? Incomprehensible. On the other hand (and this is truly incomprehensible), some prelates probably are even less ‘tech savvy’ than I am and remain uninformed about what goes on at Rome these days.

    But am so pleased to discover Ipsitilla’s parodies!

  23. B says:

    Is it normal for Rome to give a timeframe of a year in this case? It seems odd that they didn’t just state where and how often Mass is allowed. Perhaps some bad thing is in the works that shall be released in 2023 to further restrict the Mass?

  24. Not says:

    I have to say that Priest who have novus ordo parish and also say TLM are in a difficult position. They deserve our prayers and utmost respect. I could not do it myself. There are times you can see the pain in their eyes.

  25. moon1234 says:

    St. Joan of Arc, who once was excommunicated and burned at the stake, watch over those who wish to adore the Lord with the same zeal that you demonstrated. Watch over and intercede for those who wish for nothing more that to adore the Lord at the same Mass that was available to you. Protect us against those who would persecute us just as you were persecuted.


  26. robtbrown says:

    Marc in Eugene says:

    Why did he write to the Holy See?

    He’s 57 years old.

    He doesn’t just want to be a bishop. He wants to be an aaaaaarrrrrchbishop.

  27. Kathleen10 says:

    Rob, I hear you, and there is something to be said for what you’ve suggested. But that still gives them what they want, good PR (seats are filled) and of course, money. If we ask God for help, and of course we should, we also should back it up with some action. Petitions, marches, processions, pleas, articles, letters, emails, faxes. These things don’t work on people like Cupich. You could find a rock in your backyard softer than that man’s heart. Or any of their hearts.
    If we are to possibly have any effect, it will have to be unified and huge. I doubt we can or will do it, but anything needs be on the table. There comes a time, and if it’s not with this, then Catholics have no fight in them at all, in my opinion. All we do is roll over and accept things and call it something noble. It doesn’t seem noble anymore. It feels lazy or cowardly.

  28. Suburbanbanshee says:

    There’s a lot of reorganization going on in the local archdiocese, but the archbishop has been careful and kind about “shielding” his special communities from being thrown into the blender. He’s not forcing the Korean-language parishes/chapels to join the bigger parishes in English. He’s not shoving the college Catholic chapels into parishes off campus. And he’s not throwing his Latin Mass communities to the wolves, either.

    I wish that more bishops were following his example.

  29. Pingback: New Liturgical Movement: One Year Later

  30. hilltop says:

    It is simply childish what this Bishop has done:
    1) become aware of new rule
    2) know that some don’t obey the new rule
    3) go and tell on them to the rule-maker
    4) wait for word to come from the rule-maker
    5) announce to the non-obedient that the rule- maker says they have to obey the rules
    6) it’s not my fault! I like you rule breakers. It’s what the rule-maker says, not I.
    7) too bad about that rule -maker’s decision, now, isn’t it? Oh, well!

  31. aam says:

    What must Pope Benedict XVI be thinking?

  32. Chaswjd says:

    I would propose that it is time for more priests to say the Novus Ordo mass in Latin ad orientem.

    It is clear from Sacrosanctum Concilium that Latin is to be retained as the language of the Latin rite. It is also explicit that “Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” SC para. 54. How are the faithful going to learn the responses in Latin unless mass is celebrated in that language?

    Moreover, the Vatican has explicitly said that the liturgical law is indifferent to whether the mass is said ad orientem or versus populum.

    If there is to be a single unique expression of the liturgy in the Latin Rite, we ought to give the Pope exactly what he desires – masses said according to the strict letter of existing liturgical law.

    Also, under existing canon law, “The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescripts of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church . . .” Can. 214. Therefore, where priests engage in liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo, we ought to inform our bishops and expect that they take action to correct the abuses. Certainly, in those dioceses where bishops have been most insistent that the Novus Ordo be offered as the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Latin rite, we ought to expect them to be active in the suppression of abuses. To paraphrase a saying in Cardinal Cupich’s diocese, let the bishop know early and often of abuses.

  33. JRodz1 says:

    Pray for the Bishop of Savannah. Pray for Cardinal Cupich. Pray for Bishop W.Gregory. Unfortunately Bishop Parkes asked first, thereby highlighting the Parishes. As for dates, since the initial TC document was released on Christmas Eve/Day, administrative action on these dates alone established the pandora’s box the TLM is now experiencing. Why would you release this negative TC statement; that, offends TLM parishes on a Holy Day of Obligation?

Comments are closed.