The pogrom goes on.
It goes on despite not knowing what Leo XIV has in mind.
The OUTGOING/GONE Bishop Garcia of Monterey (California) is terminating the TLM that has been going on for 17 years. Yes, “out”. Bp. Daniel Garcia was named Bishop of Austin on 2 July 2025, but he has still been running Monterey. Figure that out.
He was installed by Francis in Monterey in 2018. He was named by Leo XIV to Austin on 2 July 2025 and he was installed in Austin on 18 September 2025…. four days after he signed this letter.
On 19 September, Bishop Slawomir Szkredka was named Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Monterey in California.
Now he shuts down the TLM? Before a new bishop can be appointed to Monterey who might want to make his own decisions?
I wish that people would send photos that were straight on, so that they could be more easily OCR’d. Saves a lot of time.
NB: Two full pages of justifications.
I note a couple of things.
Firstly, he based his action on Traditionis custodes (aka Taurina cacata), which we now know was based on a falsehood: the claim that the majority of bishops surveyed leaned toward negative when it was in truth the opposite. The whole thing is an unjust and cruel house of card.
He wrote: “The primary focus of every bishop… is to lead the Church toward unity.”
One can defend that to an extent (cf. LG23, UR 5). However, it seems to me that the primary focus of every bishop should be the sanctification and salvation of souls. Moreover, why does “unity” in the minds of these bishops mean “uniformity”? He used the word “unity” 8 times on the first page, 3 times in one paragraph, 2 times in another, plus 4 times on the second page.
He wrote: “rare situation… of having two liturgies being celebrated in the one Latin Rite.”
Has this bishop never heard of the Ambrosian Rite? Braga Rite? Lyonnaise Rite? The Mozarabic Rite? How about the so-called Zaire Rite? And there’s the Dominican Rite, the Cistercian Rite, Norbertine Rite…. For dumb.
There is this howler: “Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II, all the elements of the reformed rite….”
I don’t even know where to start. Shall we start with the massive redacted orations or the offertory prayers? There is a list.
I’ll pass over the shallow reference to “active participation”. He has an MA in liturgy from the liberal St. John’s University in Collegeville, MN.
There’s this:
“There is also the matter of the Pastor there at Sacred Heart and St. Benedict’s being able to give his full attention to the entire parish rather than taking his limited time spent with a small group of individuals who are not worshiping according to ordinary (and one) right of the Latin Church.”
Wait just a cottin pikin’ minute! What about “the periphery”? What about the good shepherd (aka pastor) seeking out the minority? This underscores the condescension toward the people who want the traditional sacred worship.
“Those people… who do different things…”. Thank heaven I’m not like that group over there! We stand in unity to get the white thing. Not like those people, who kneel a lot. All that bowing and scraping. They don’t sing our unity songs, like “One Bread, One Body”, “Gather Us In” and “Make Us One”.”
Did you notice that he says he sent various people to talk to the TLM community: The chancellor, the director of the tribunal. He consulted the vicar general and presbyteral council. This is all “cover”, of course. However, note that he does not say that HE met with them.
Then comes the oily close:
I invite you all to join in unity with the parish of Sacred Heart and St. Benedict, and in cooperation with your pastor, as they gather around the table of the Lord celebrating the rich Eucharistic Sacrifice, each Sunday, which has been a great fruit of the Council. May this a liturgy charge your hearts with charity and trust to build the unity Pope Leo spoke about in the Mass he celebrated early in his pontificate in St. Peter’s Square: …
He goes on to give a quote from Leo about the macro view of the Church which has effectively nothing to do with the micro situation of Monterey.
Yeah… this is going to persuade.
Note the “rich Eucharist Sacrifice… a great fruit of the Council”. Since the Eucharistic Sacrifice is from the Lord at the Last Supper, he can only mean the Novus Ordo. I would challenge him to explain the results of the survey a few years ago revealing that some 60% of Catholic’s don’t believe what the Church teaches about transubstantiation. Since those people probably have contact with something, anything, Catholic only on Sunday for Mass, I think we can draw a line more or less straight between how Mass is celebrated and what people believe… sorry, don’t believe.
Other demonstrable fruits of the Council have without question been the huge increase in vocations to the priesthood, the building and filling of new convents, long lines at confessionals, the increased number of weddings and bapt…. oh, no, wait!
Those things happen among the more traditionally inclined. My bad.
Finally, the letter was dated “September 14, 2025”.
The Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross.
18 years to the day that Summorum Pontificum went into effect.
What a cheap shot.
In the end, it is about their dislike not just of the traditional Roman Rite, it’s about their dislike of the people who desire it. They don’t like the people.
What a disappointment.
Those poor people.
It looks like bishops are moving fast to smash the traditional faithful before Leo or the next bishop can do something.
Also, can. 428 §1 says:
“When a see is vacant, nothing is to be altered.”
The Diocese of Monterey was vacant when Garcia signed that letter.
UPDOWNDATE:
Bishop Daniel Garcia, Central Texas born and raised, delivered an emotional homily condemning racism and the harsh treatment of migrants as he was installed as the sixth bishop of the Diocese of Austin, Texas, on Sept. 18. https://t.co/eNZmf2Qs1b
— NCR (@NCRonline) September 20, 2025
Loading ...
I’m confused about something. He signed the letter “Bishop of Monterey a qua“. He didn’t sign as “Apostolic Administrator”.
What’s the “a qua” (“from which”) about?
Can. 416 says:
“An episcopal see is vacant upon the death of a diocesan bishop, resignation accepted by the Roman Pontiff, transfer, or privation made known to the bishop.”
So, when Garcia was transferred to Austin on 2 July 2025 Monterey was vacant. and he was installed in Austin on 18 September 2025…. four days after he signed this letter.
Can. 418 §1 says:
“Upon certain notice of transfer, a bishop must claim the diocese to which he has been transferred (ad quam) and take canonical possession of it within two months. On the day that he takes possession of the new diocese, however, the diocese from which he has been transferred (a qua) is vacant.”
First, I thought it was vacant “upon… transfer”. Also, he was installed in Austin on 18 September 2025. That’s more than two months. See the following.
Can. 418 §1 says:
“Upon certain notice of transfer, a bishop must claim the diocese to which he has been transferred (ad quam) and take canonical possession of it within two months. On the day that he takes possession of the new diocese, however, the diocese from which he has been transferred (a qua) is vacant.
§2. Upon certain notice of transfer until the canonical possession of the new diocese, a transferred bishop in the diocese from which he has been transferred:
1/ obtains the power of a diocesan administrator and is bound by the obligations of the same; all power of the vicar general and episcopal vicar ceases,
So, he is transferred on 2 July and installed on 18 September, 2 months and about 2 weeks later. Hence, was there something canonically not in order about him still having authority in Monterey? I am not a canonist, of course.
Also, can. 428 §1 says:
“When a see is vacant, nothing is to be altered.”
The Diocese of Monterey was vacant when Garcia signed that letter.
He signed the letter after the two months.
Was there some dispensation given by the Holy See about the length of time? It might have not been made public.
It looks like bishops are moving fast to smash the traditional faithful before Leo or the next bishop can do something.
The Novus Ordo is NOT the ‘one rite’ of the Catholic Church. There are more than 20 I believe including Byzantine, Maronite, etc. The only Rite that is persecuted is the true Latin Rite. There is nothing here that is about unity! Every Novus Ordo parish is different for one thing with some being intolerable to a faithful person.
The pope is not stopping the purge. Few in the Episcopate seem to care for these faithful Catholics wanted to worship God in the very best and most reverent way they know.
“according to ordinary (and one) right of the Latin Church.” Right? It’s, um, “rite.”
I was stationed in Monterey in 2017-2018, and Hollister was one of the few places that I found any liturgical or doctrinal sanity. I remember going to Mass at the cathedral where they kicked out the children, and had the choir and a group of adults (not kids) sing and act out the Gospel. I went home in tears.
At a different parish I asked the priest there to bless my olive oil according to the Rituale, and he yelled at me saying, “We as Catholics don’t do this anymore!”
The bishop of Monterey should have cleaned up the Novus Ordo instead of going after his most faithful sons and daughters. Another prelate, like Francis, that hates his own children.
Tone and content of so many statements in these letters we’ve seen lately put one on the sad choice between believing the bishop is ignorant in matters of theology, canon law, and liturgy that he has a duty by office know, or believing that he is purposefully twisting the knife and appealing to arguments and ideas that he knows to be specious. Neither case paints an excusable figure for them.
There’s certainly a rush (I assume Fr. has heard about the two cases of bishops in Argentina these past couple months, one trying to decree that first communicants MUST receive standing and on the hand, the other trying to forbid the faithful to kneel for receiving, besides all the stuff going on in the US), that as I have said before, I find hard to explain. I could understand the crackdown at leisurely pace if they thought they can get away with it because Rome won’t say anything, but not the hurry. Even if Leo approved, I do think everyone can agree that he’s not one to mettle prizes and punishments the way Francis did, and that should be painfully obvious to them, so that wouldn’t be a motive. If they believe something is going to come out of Rome soon to curtail this kind of thing… why put a target on your forehead? Same goes for trying to make him show his hand so they can start opposing him. I don’t get it at all.
Re dates: Note also that the Mass is to end as of October 13, the anniversary of Fatima’s great Miracle of the Sun. A date almost certainly dear to many who attend.
Wouldn’t it be great if priests and the laity completely ignored it?
Good luck to the trad Catholics in Austin, you’re not getting the TLM back at the cathedral anytime soon. And just what we need, another open borders bishop in Texas.
Just a short rant Father- “…gather around the table of the Lord”. I’ve also heard, when forced to attend a NO Mass, “…while we prepare the table, please sing with us…”
It sounds like someone’s setting up picnic lunch for the family or something. What, can’t find the plastic forks? It’s not a table, it’s an ALTAR, being made ready for the arrival of our Lord & Savior. The casualness of the wording makes me nuts.
Sorry, I needed to unload that. I wish we could get back to the truth…
Every time I see something like this, I become more and more convinced of the crisis in the Church the SSPX speaks of…
…and I generally am opposed to the SSPX. I wonder how much longer before I may be attending my local one.
God have mercy on us and restore the traditional Masses to us!
… and +Sylvester Ryan still draws breath… he must be cackling in his tapioca!
Without getting into a lengthy soliloquy, +Syl was adamant in refusing any and all requests pertaining to the TLM. His successor, +Richard Garcia, whose accession to the see came just before Summorum Pontificum, was more generous and even allowed a priest from the IBP to minister in the Diocese. Since his untimely death in 2018, his successor (also named Garcia – recently reassigned) has been tightening the noose around the “traddies”. So they are back to 2006, with no TLM and uncertainty over the future. Remembering those heady days in July and then September of 2007, who’d’ve expected all of this? And they wonder why some folks question the legitimacy of their leadership!
Pingback: MONDAY EARLY-MORNING EDITION - BIG PVLPIT
The letter has this strange obsession with “unity”. The suppression of the ancient form of the Roman Rite, and in many cases outward elements of it such as receiving kneeling and on the tongue, Gregorian Chant, etc. seems to suggest that they are only concerned with outward appearances. But of course our outward actions stem from an internal understanding as to what these actions mean. They seem to be afraid of these internal understandings, for example if people really believed that the Eucharist was the real presence of Christ rather than just “the white thing we get and then we sing a song”. They seem to be really afraid of authentic Catholicism.
Does all of this mean this notification is invalid and can be ignored, or should it be canonically challenged and declared null and void?
TradCathMale: On that question the late Servant of God Fr. John Hardon used to say, “Dip your bucket in wherever you can find water.”
@FrZ Re: diocesan sede vacante
Canon 382, article states that “A bishop takes canonical possession of a diocese when he personally or through a proxy has shown the apostolic letter in the same diocese to the college of consultors in the presence of the chancellor of the Curia, who records the event…” The latter half of that article refers to newly erected dioceses.
By this metric, and taking into account canon 418, article 1 -“…On the day on which he takes possession of the new diocese, the diocese from which he has been transferred becomes vacant.”-he still had proper administrative authority as of September 14th. Article 2 of 418 also specifies this.
It’s an icky way to slam the door behind himself, but seems valid.
The problem we have today is that many prelates believe that the definition of mercy is the crushing of TLM communities. To them it’s an axiomatic principle that requires no explanation or comparative analysis with other manifestations of mercy.
There is, I have mentioned it already I think, this scene that moved by to no end in War and Peace by Tolstoi. I mean the one where Field Marshal Kutusow where he receives the news that Napoleon and his army have, with great effort, pushed the defenders at Borodino and are now marching on Moscow and look like capturing it. By the usual reckoning of things military, this means a victory on Napoleon’s side., Kutusow hears it, rejoices, spends a bit of time in prayer in front of the icons I believe, and then orders prayers of thanksgiving to be said all over the empire for a victory – because this means the war is going to be won.
They wouldn’t do things of that sort if they were winning.
I do not, of course, wish to belittle the very real sufferings of the Monterey diocesans, or defend the injustice of the former bishop’s action.
In fact, it looks (per our reverend host’s first comment) to be invalid on a technicality (what does “bishop a qua” even mean?), and this is even better. Let’s hope the trads love of legality does not go so far as to obey, in a tone embittered and encouraging embitterment, something that is not only unjust but not even actually an order. Pope Francis did many wrong things in his pontificate, but, hagan lio.
(Also, I think an express dispensation by the Holy See for “changing things” would, in my view, require that the act that changes things contains a phrase like “by approval of the Holy See” or something to that effect. I am not a canon lawyer, but it would be odd if administrators can just do things the law expressily says they cannot because the subjects would be obliged to think “well maybe he’s got dispensation” when he doesn’t even say so.)
Dear Dantesque,
If they believe something is going to come out of Rome soon to curtail this kind of thing… why put a target on your forehead?
I don’t, of course, know whether they believe something is going to come out of Rome soon to curtail this kind of thing. But it appears that they do.
They also know that Pope Leo is neither Pope Francis nor (begging your pardon) President Trump. With him, they are not putting targets on their foreheads for acting against the trads now. As you say yourself, I do think everyone can agree that he’s not one to mettle prizes and punishments the way Francis did. They calculate that if they want to crush the Old Mass (which they apparently, wrong and absurd as that is, opine to be a meritorious act to crush), now is the time, and they won’t be punished, and perhaps even their decision will for a long time not be reversed – provided it is done before day D.
Apparently they do fear such a day D. The fact that they do is maybe a grounds for hope that there might be one. – It is quite possible that the day D they fear is a local one, the installment of the new bishop in question. Note that that doesn’t mean that they’d necessarily fear him to be so trad-friendly that trads consider him trad-friendly – if that were the case, he’d be hardly able to gain anything by banning now, of course, the measure would be immediately and explicitly reversed. The practically relevant point is that rescinding an existing ban and not enacting a ban oneself are very much different things politically.
I still remember the November of 2021 when in Germany the new government was sworn into. Being a leftist one there was obviously enough to disagree with, but they weren’t likely to enact a Covid lockdown I think (though with one prominent exception). So, they outgoing government started a Covid lockdown before handing over the helm, and lobbied for the one prominent exception to become minister for health; and sure enough they did not at once reverse the decision once in power.
This is exactly why I can’t find myself going to a Diocesan TLM regularly. The threat of it being taken away is always looming. If the FSSP/ICKSP are one day forced to say the NO or disband, then I will gladly go to the SSPX. I empathize with those whose only option is a Diocesan TLM. I used to live in a place with no TLM at all any closer than a 2.5 hour drive across a mountain range. Never again.
On the topic of the Eucharist and the Real Presence, as mentioned by JonPatrick, the National Catholic Register today has an article by Tessa Gervasini about correlations between belief in the Real Presence and other aspects of Mass, e.g. “‘The TLM liturgy prescribes Eucharistic-reverent behavior … therefore, [Lindemann] expected that Catholics who attend the TLM would on average have stronger Real Presence beliefs.’ The study found this to be true as participants whose parishes offer a TLM (M=3.63), whether or not the participant has ever attended it, showed a slightly stronger belief in the Real Presence than those whose parishes do not offer one (M=3.04).”
Who can explain the timing of this? If Bishop Garcia wanted to shut the TLM down in his diocese, why didn’t he do it in 2021, or 2022, or 2023, or 2024, or the first half of 2025?
Dear donato2,
maybe he thinks we’re stronger than we think we are, and didn’t want to deal with a backlash. So, by slamming such a decree down on his we out, he gets two peas in one pod: shutting the TLM which he apparently thinks is something that really, at some point, needs to be done, and not having to deal with it afterwards.
The sad thing is that he thinks shutting the TLM is something that needs to be done.
The Diocese of Monterey was vacant when Garcia signed that letter.
I didn’t realize that bishops can make changes to Dioceses that aren’t theirs…
@WVC: So, I’m torn. Disobedience is a serious issue within the Church…
…but I think there’s a fair point to be had that this letter was (apparently?) only released /after/ he was installed as bishop in Austin, so there /is/ a question of propriety. Also (cheating and looking at Wikipedia), does anyone know of the views of Slawomir Szkredka (the administrator) on the topic? If he is sympathetic, would it be valid to petition him to suspend this pending (1) the installation of a permanent bishop and/or (2) further clarification from Rome? I think (1) might be the strongest case – arranging for a letter to be published after one is out of office seems like it should carry as much weight as naming a cardinal in pectore does if not revealed after a Pope has passed.
Dear grayanderson,
if there’s a valid case to be made that the order is a non-order, it is (in my view) a tactical mistake to go to an authority to withdraw it.
Except, perhaps, if you know beforehand that the authority will decide just as you want it to. As the saying goes, “never ask a question where you don’t know and like the answer before”. Or as the Germans say, “never go to your superior / unless summons force you nearior.” (Pardon the bad translation, the original is “Gehe nie zu deinem Ferscht, wenn du nicht gerufen werscht” and means “never go see your prince, unless you have been called to do so”.)
Pingback: The Traditional Mass in the Diocese of Monterey – Central Coast Catholic
A somewhat local take:
“What Serra Began, Garcia Now Ends: The End of the Traditional Latin Mass in the Diocese of Monterey”
https://centralcoastcatholic.net/2025/09/24/the-traditional-mass-in-the-diocese-of-monterey/