UPDATE 31 May 11:28:
Readers have asked for the whole letter, which I did not have. The link in the email didn’t work and posted a screenshot of what I had. Another reader found the whole thing:
HERE This should open up a PDF for you.
It is quite long and it constitutes, inter alia, a cri du coeur. Father (the writer) tried to lay out all the dynamics of the situation in way that seems comprehensive and fair.
Originally Published on: May 31, 2025 at 02:22
I received this from a reader…
Hi Father Z,
Please pray for those of us rural Missouri.
What he attached.
Loading ...
Can you please post the whole letter from Fr Schrader. Click to continue reading doesn’t work. Thanks.
Curious. This parish isn’t far from me and I’ve attended the TLM there and moreso when it was previously in Mexico, MO. I checked their website for the letter but didn’t find it. Would like to read the rest of it as am curious what happened. This is the only TLM available in the diocese to my knowledge. Very sharp and caring priest. Disappointed to hear this.
Pater – any chance you could post the link to the rest of the document? Thanks!
My wife and I went to Mass there on a few occasions ~25y ago while visiting relatives. Such a beautiful church, if I recall correctly they had the largest collection of relics in the diocese. After Mass I said to the (young) priest “this church would be the perfect place for the Traditional Mass!” His eyes lit up and he looked around warily, and he said “nope, people have asked but the bishop will never allow it!” Obviously there was some demand for it, and it is wonderful to think that they finally got it at some point… I’d really be interested in knowing what the story is behind the cancellation since I believe that Jefferson City is currently sede vacante…
O miserum Pelagium! Pro dolor.
The link in the email did not work and this is a screen shot. I can’t post the link. Someone can hunt it down.
It seems the definition many of us had for “unity” is different from the definition some bishops are using. I thought the new pope’s call for unity meant respect, at least liturgically, for both rites. To some bishops, it seems “unity” means conforming to their vision of the Church, even if that requires force.
We still don’t know how the new pope views the word unity. We can always hope and pray Leo will share the vision of Benedict.
There is an error in Fr. Schrader’s reasoning. “The Church has always had the authority to restrict priests in obedience in such matters. For instance, as a priest of the Latin Church, I may not celebrate the divine liturgies of the Eastern Catholic
Churches without special permission.”
Latin Rite priests have an inability to say the Divine Liturgy not a prohibition against saying the Divine Liturgy. Biritualism is an exception to the rules — to the nature of the thing that it is to be ordained as a priest of a specific Church which has a specific Rite (which is in its essence, an extension of the individual’s Confirmation into a specific Church).
A better example would have been if he would have discussed obedience as a bishop not permitting his priests to say one of the other Rites that belong to the Roman Church (for example the Anglican Ordinariate Rite). But even then a serious issue arises.
It is clear that Francis, via a TC argument, believed that the TLM was not the Rite of the Roman Church but had become a separate rite (like the AOR) after the “reforms” of Vatican II. This is what allows a bishop to restrict Roman Rite priets from saying it — because it is not THE rite of the Roman Church to which priests of the Roman Church are ordained to offer to God.
Pope Benedict rightly taught that Roman Rite priests cannot be prevented from saying TLM because it is (a form) of THE rite to which Roman Catholic priests are ordained to.
Here is an additional issue — Pope Benedict tied the NO to TLM in such a way that allows those that follow his reasoning to say that the NO is the Apostolic Rite of the Roman Church (as the NO is a different form of TLM). Francis’ TC is such that the NO cannot be said to be the Apostolic Rite of the Roman Church but a different and new rite that replaced TLM. Because it replaced TLM, the bishop has the ability to restrict and eliminate its usage. But that also means that the NO isn’t apostolic.
Here is another error in the issue of obedience. A bishop can juridically prevent public celebration of Mass/Divine Liturgy for any priest. He cannot, though prevent private celebration of the priest to say the rite to which he was ordained. Doing so is laicization.
So a bishop that is sitting there saying “you may not privately say TLM” is a bishop that doesn’t believe that TLM is not THE rite of the Roman Church, it is not the apostolic rite. The NO is also not the apostolic rite, then but a separate rite belonging to a new church.
As someone who goes to a NO parish, you might be able to see the contempt that I have for such TC thought as it severs my NO parish from apostolicity, which is one of core marks of being the Church of Christ.
[You got out pretty far over your skis, above. What B16 did with SP was create a juridical solution. It was not an attempt to settle the question (theological, liturgical) about the unity of the “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary” forms.]
This must be disturbing for the Catholics living in the Archdiocese of Kansas City with their new Archbisop McKnight. My son is starting college in Kansas and he has the TLM 45 minutes drive west of him and east of him, so I hope it will not be something he will soon lose. It is strange that McKnight, a University of Dallas and Pontifical Josephinum Seminary graduate who is from the conservative Diocese of Wichita would act this way. Maybe his move to suppress the TLM in Jefferson City got him the promotion to Kansas City. Yet that is even worse, as a careerist priest or bishop is the worse type of cleric.
I am going to write a respectful letter to Pope Leo and ask that he consider stopping the persecution of faithful Catholics who love the TLM and desire to worship God in the most reverent manner they know. They also know their faith and do their best to live it. This persecution from within needs to stop! Please, Lord, make it stop.
As horrible as this is, and disheartening, We were attending Traditional Latin Mass at locations that had No Approvals from local Ordinary, going back 50 years. The Religious Orders and the Priest just did what they always did. Also We weren’t using the 1962 Missal. The local ordinary would visit once a year as required by. Canon Law. Over time they Recognized the Orders but the Orders kept their independence. We all contributed financially and the TLM thrived.
I reference your often posted picture of Mass be prayed in the home during the Protestant reformation. THEY CAN’T STOP THE MASS OR THOSE WHO ATTEND.
~Fr. Z.
I agree that SP is a juridical solution, not a settling of the question, and does raise multiple questions itself.
SP’s “two forms of the same rite” is predicated upon a very Ratzingerian ontological argument. It is the same argument that was used to bifurcate the Petrine ministry into an active and contemplative form, sharing one nature (which is structured in juridical language for how it is to operate), and you see it in Ratzinger’s various documents on how the Church relates to the Churches and Protestant eccesial communities (Dominus Iesus, everytime “subsists in” comes up in his writings, etc.), wherein things that share the same nature can come in different forms.
Question for Edification:
1. It is my understanding that what underpins TC’s argument is that the “Apostolic Rite” is simply whatever the bishops declare to be their normative Rite, that priests are ordained to serve the bishop who is the guarantee of apostolicity by lineage. The norm is how the local bishop chooses to offer the rite. Loss of apostolicity is deviation from obedience to the office holder.
The more traditional argument is that the apostolic rite is that rite which came from the Apostles. Priests are ordained to serve the liturgy/rite and what guarantees apostolicity is the conformation of the priest and their bishop to the rite that has been handed down. The norm is the rite itself, to which the local bishop is to serve. Loss of apostolicity is deviation from the rite, of whom the bishop is the chief celebrant of the local Church.
Do I have an error in understanding the two basic positions that are at play in all of this?
Lurker 59….. isn’t Quo Primum protection from everything including Kryptonite for a priest wanting to say the Traditional mass…???
tzabiega
The situation in the KC archdiocese is a little more secure, as the TLMs are offered by FSSP priests in FSSP chapels (with the exception of the one in Topeka, offered in a parish church, but still by FSSP priests from Maple Hill). I believe there’s also a TLM at Benedictine College in one of the monastery chapels.
For Westphalia, I’m guessing McKnight didn’t request another extension because he wasn’t going to be Bishop of Jefferson City much longer, and thought it best to leave it to his successor.
I do wonder if the recent cancellations came from the latter months of Francis’s papacy, or if these are panicked decisions in anticipation of a relaxation of TC impending to try and snuff out the TLM as much as possible? Only time will tell, I suppose.
We should rejoice and be glad that I’ll not offer my best guess at a solution for a self-inflicted liturgical mess of the sort that started the Anglican Communion on the path to become what’s left of it today. Instead, could we pause and say a prayer of thanks that there are priests such as Fr. Schrader, who spent time and I suspect shed tears to write his clear though sad letter. We have all endured the period when “is the pope Catholic?” was not necessarily a joke any longer. It seems, and God willing, that unhappy time is over. But whether it is or not, as long as there are such priests, Hell will indeed not prevail. It is sad that the new pope is being pushed, in North Carolina and elsewhere, into dealing with this perhaps sooner than he would choose. But let us pray for the wisdom of all involved.
I respect the priest’s sincerity, but it is nonsensical for a Roman rite priest to be forbidden from using the Roman rite.
Appeals to “obedience” in this matter do not apply. The Roman rite is not an optional extra. The fact that it is being treated as an optional extra that can be conceded or taken away at will and for any reason sends a strong message to every family in the diocese: go to the SSPX church which does NOT treat the Roman rite as an optional extra and will NOT pull the rug out from under those families at any moment.
All,
Please pray for Fr. Schrader. Anyone who reads the letter should be able to surmise that it was not a letter he wanted to write.
And also, please consider whether the situation would be improved or made worse by your comments.
Sincerely,
Fr. Schrader’s little brother
For those commenting about Bishop McKnight being moved, it is worth noting that he is going to the Archdiocese of Kansas City in KANSAS since many people unfamiliar with the Midwest do not understand the difference. As someone else noted, they do at least have an FSSP in Kansas City, Kansas, and another one in Maple Hill near Topeka, as well as a TLM at Benedictine college. Note that this is a different diocese than the diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, just across the state line in Kansas City, Missouri. KC Missouri is “reasonably” blessed with TLMs. A couple diocesan, I believe, plus an ICKSP and the Benedictines of Mary. Fortunately, the bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph in Missouri seems to mostly support tradition. Unfortunately, those of us in rural Missouri (whether it be the Jeff City diocese or Springfield-Cape) are hard pressed to find a TLM anywhere within a 2-3 hour drive. Pretty much have to go to KC or StL. There’s a small diocesan one in Springfield, but the bishop there has made it difficult for it to succeed.
As a mother, I very much appreciate when he says: “You are not crazy or divisive or bad for liking or being interested in traditional worship. You are not
wrong for wanting to nourish and protect your children’s faith in this harsh world.”
Cue the tears.
@dakota, my heart goes out to you, truly. It is worse to watch a loved one suffer than to suffer ourselves. It is obvious or should be, your brother is in pain over this, and in a way is just another victim in the liturgy war started by our former pope and his fellow travelers. Laity, did not start this battle, it began based on a fantasy about division, which was false but which is actually now growing by the day. It is now a chasm, but we are supposed to pretend this is not the case. It seems likely we in diocesan TLM’s are all going to find this same situation coming our way, as we expect bishop after bishop to do the same. The pope who started this assault is dead and cold, but his dream lives on, and while we wait and hope for the same mercy and compassion we see extended to virtually everyone on planet earth EXCEPT faithful Catholics who just want what was sacred and holy up until five minutes ago. If it wasnt that then Jesus lied to us, and billions of Catholics, former popes, holy saints, the martyrs, were all completely duped and in error. The church has tormented the faithful for 12 years now. If this continues it seems clear we are being forced to choose between the church and the TLM, the Mass of Ages. There is time for Pope Leo to intervene in Charlotte and now in Missouri. What is being done is wrong in the extreme. Are the men who run our church Catholic or not.
To be fair to the description, “a pogrom” does not seem, to me, to be how to describe the situation.
Note that I do not mean to disrespect the cri-de-coeur in any way; it is indeed not a letter Fr Schrader wanted to write. All the same: The bishop twice requested and received a dispensation; that shows he has at least some sort of sympathy for the TLM. He requested it a third time and didn’t receive it; then the bishop, reluctantly (or so I read it) forbade it to continue, and after being transferred to another diocese, Fr Schrader very reluctantly still thinks himself bound in conscience to this order.
To a reluctantly given order by a meanwhile deposed (not dishonorably but because of a transfer and promotion; but still) bishop whose reason are the personal wished of an in-the-meantime-deceased (may God grant him eternal rest) Pope. That’s an incredibly hurting state of affairs, but I do not think it qualifies as a pogrom.
And while the amount of voluntary subordination seems quite praiseworthy, and in anycase anyone must follow his own conscience however hard it is… I think Fr Schrader is wrong, not only in his reasoning that disobedience is unjustified even were it not for prudential reasons (his sincerity deserves respect, but that is wrong, TC does not bind in conscience); but even in assuming that it would be disobedience in the first place. He does not act against what his previous bishop would actually have wanted. He has presently no bishop to ask. If the former were still bishop, he almost certainly would not give the order now, the situation in Rome having changed.
Well, with – again, as I said, highest respect to Fr Schrader’s conscience – but waiting for an allowance by the authority to be given before an otherwise quite unproblematic action, or that an obsolete order is actually revoked with sign and signature, does not seem the way of Catholic cultures. (One of the few areas where the Prussian tradition, in the military, actually follows the Catholic rather than the Protestant mentality. The result is called Auftragstaktik and has been credited with quite some military successes.)
Father, a penny for your thoughts about the difference in approach (and description of obedience) between Father Schrader and the SSPX? Can they both be correct?