YET ANOTHER Sermon by the Rector of D. Knoxville’s Basilica: The 3rd time’s not the charm

Hard to believe, but the Rector of the Basilica in Chattanooga in the Diocese of Knoxville (where the Bishop crushed the people who desire the TLM) has issued a THIRD homily about stitching together a gussied-up Novus Ordo Mass which is supposed to satisfy those who desire the Vetus Ordo (Usus Antiquior).

Fr. Carter’s strives to sound pastoral and sincere, to acknowledge the inflicted pain over the transition from the Traditional Latin Mass to the Novus Ordo. Yet his core argument, that continuity is preserved if the reformed liturgy is “done well”, rests on assertion rather than proof. By blaming rupture on poor implementation, he overlooks structural discontinuities within the reform itself. His proposed “hermeneutic of continuity” Mass, a personalized blend of old and new elements, ironically imposes subjectivism, making worship depend on the celebrant’s discretion rather than liturgical law. Absurd claims, such as that the 1962 Missale leaves “no place” for the faithful, misrepresent the nature of participation and the priest’s mediating role. Though he tried to sound compassionate, his tone condescending, reducing attachment to the TLM to emotion rather than conviction. Ultimately, the homily seems to offer sympathy but not resolution. It promises harmony where unresolved theological and ritual fractures remain.

As one of my correspondents quipped…

“A conclusion wandering in search of an argument…”

In what follows, my emphases and comments.

I find this task disagreeable.

Transition of the Latin Mass: Sympathy and Hope Homily given October 26, 2025 Very Rev. J. David Carter, JCL, JV, Pastor & Rector The Basilica of Saints Peter and Paul

Two weeks ago, I announced the transition of the celebration of this Mass to using the current liturgical books of the Roman rite. Last week I gave an explanation of the discernment leading to that decision. This week I would like to acknowledge the feelings that many are having, to express sympathy with the emotions that are swirling around it, and then to give reasons to hope that might help those who are struggling to understand what to expect.

First, I would like to ask forgiveness from anyone who felt hurt by the way this was presented. I never intended to offend or wound anyone, and I know that is certainly true for the bishop. But I do know the dangers out there for the flock, dangers learned from personal experience, from people who used to attend this parish, but have opted to rupture communion over things like this. [Let the blame game begin!] These are things that will inevitably cause an emotional reaction in the hearts of those who love the ancient forms of worship and so I beg your mercy for any unintended feeling of offense. I love you. I want what is good for you. I do not wish you harm, but I acknowledge that many parishioners are feeling wounded and hurt. Especially for you, I would like to invite you to a listening session (for 11:30 Mass parishioners) on Wednesday, November 5 at 6pm in Varallo Parish Hall, along with a potluck dinner. I invite you to come with your questions and observations.

[The opening frames the issue chiefly as managing emotions in view of an already-taken decision. This pre-emptively narrows the discussion to “feelings” rather than first principles (lex orandi, ecclesial law, juridical authority, morality of the decisions). It assumes the conclusion (transition) and moves the burden onto the hearers to adapt. The apology focuses on “how this was presented,” not on whether the decision itself could be prudentially or theologically faulty. The logic shifts harm from an act (suppression/transition) to a reaction (“emotional response”), which can read as non-accountability.]

I especially want to hear from you about what the ancient ways have meant to you. What do you feel you will be losing in this transition? What do you fear in celebrating the reformed order of Mass? [Is there any thought involved or is this about feelings?]

Second, know that I have wrestled with this for some time. Know that I share the struggle in understanding what this change will mean for us, and I don’t have it all figured out. I am seeking understanding of this direction the leaders of the Church have asked of us. [And yet what none of us know is what Leo XIV thinks in full. We have seen him welcome celebration of a Pontifical Mass by Card. Burke in St. Peter’s. That’s something, but not enough to have a clear indication of what he might do. In the meantime, bishops (at the behest of the Nuncio? Prefect? sua sponte?) have chosen to get active and stomp all over the faithful.] I have sympathy in this moment. I want you to know that I am on your side, even though some may think I am not. [Is that so? This is why you speak of the pre-Conciliar form as you do?] I understand well the feeling of betrayal and resentment for what was lost. [Thank you for acknowledging that it was “betrayal”.] I felt this myself when I discovered the richness of our Catholic liturgical tradition. I discovered this while in the seminary, long before Summorum Pontificum was issued. When I read books like The Spirit of the Liturgy by Cardinal Ratzinger and Turning towards the Lord by Fr. Lang and The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Msgr. Klaus Gamber, it was as if a light was turned on. [These very authors raise principled critiques of the “reform”’s structure. Merely sharing appreciation for tradition doesn’t add much weight for the speaker’s claims.] I recall the immense joy I experienced in learning about the sacred traditions of the liturgy: orientation, language, gestures, and especially sacred music. I also recall the sense that these holy and beautiful things had been stolen and hidden from me. So, I can sympathize with what you may be feeling in this moment. I share your feeling of betrayal by those who told us traditional things were bad or harmful.

Know that I am not saying traditional things are bad. I lament with you when I see the most holy thing we do reduced to cheap entertainment and turned into a folk gathering or an informal coffee clatch. I cringe just like you when I hear banal music with theologically deficient texts sung to tunes meant for a lounge or a stage being sung at the most solemn moments of divine worship. Like you, I found a treasure trove of truth, beauty, and goodness in those things [I’m curious. Which “things”? This is of the essence, I think. Was it, as stated above: “orientation, language, gestures, and especially sacred music”?] that a certain generation rashly and imprudently jettisoned in their zeal to implement the reform. In this, we can recognize that in many places, the reform surely went beyond what was called for. In fact, these past few weeks I have been reading through the documents on the liturgy since Vatican II, and I see a consistent effort by the Church to correct these errors and liturgical abuses and call us all back to authentic reform.

I share your longing and desire for the recovery of the sacred. But here is the part that perhaps you may find surprising. I found these things we love defended and promoted even in the documents of the reform. Gregorian chant holds pride of place. The Latin language is to be preserved. The people are to know their parts in Latin. Versum populum worship was not ordered by the council, and ad orientem is still assumed in the rubrics of the current Roman Missal. Communion on the hand was only a concession to disobedient pastors, not a universal directive. Extraordinary ministers were not supposed to become so ordinary. The rules for offering Holy Communion under both species are still there, even if they are brazenly unenforced in most places. Look around you at this parish and what we have accomplished together over the years. We were celebrating the recovery of these holy and good things here even before the weekly celebration of the 1962 Missal, because we were following the already existing defense of tradition found in the documents, rubrics, and directives following the reform. We want the fullness of the Catholic faith. We want the traditions. Especially among the young, this clear call for continuity and valuing ancient things is being heard. But we also want these things in communion with the pope and the bishops. [Abuses, not reform. He posits overreach and “consistent correction” (in the paragraph above). This is assertion without warrant. If corrections exist, why are abuses endemic decades on? The inference “therefore the reform is fine” is a non sequitur. At the same time, if locally abuses have been checked, and just at that Basilica, that’s a good thing.]

I understand the desire to retreat into the security and stability of the older form. It is in no way wrong to appreciate, value, and desire what is good. We aren’t wrong for seeing and appreciating goodness in the pre-conciliar rites. For a time, I, too, took refuge in the stabilitas formae of the vetus ordo. [He concedes older rite’s stability, then subtly recodes it as “refuge” which is “retreat.” This is an equivocation: stability is not withdrawal.] 

I share your fear of the spirit of rupture that has seemingly overtaken the reform in many quarters. I share your frustration with bishops and pastors who do not permit what is allowed universally, while allowing abhorrent abuses to continue without a word. It is disheartening to see many bishops seek to impose the rigidity of their own versions of the reform even when they have been proven to be unfruitful. [Never mind what is happening here.] I have been just as angry as you when I hear about bishops denying communion to those who simply want to kneel to receive our precious Lord in the Eucharist. I, too, have been upset when I hear of bishops imposing a myopic view of the liturgy that comes from the ‘beige’ period of Catholicism. We pastors can be real boneheads at times, for sure. But notice how the Church universal came to our rescue and gave us a correction with a reiteration of the legitimate posture of kneeling and receiving Communion on the tongue.  [He might be referring to Redemptionis Sacramentum.] We do it freely here. I truly believe a similar reiteration will come about ad orientem. The orientation of our Eucharistic prayer ad Deum can never been denied, [And yet it is.] and the church has reiterated it in documents that clarify the words used in the rubrics. [And yet they are ignored.] I lament with you the horizontalization of our prayer as if the Eucharistic prayer is prayed towards the people. I’ve heard from many laity that they don’t want the priest to put on a performance for us as if he were on stage to entertain us. I’ve watched as priests speak words to the Father but look into the eyes of the faithful, as if they were supposed to be making some personal connection with the people at that transcendent moment. No wonder there is a mistaken ecclesiology and theology that has developed in some places. [Indeed.] But that is a defect of the implementation, not of the reform itself. For sure, there is a lot of malformation and misinformation out there about who we are and what we are doing. It needs to be corrected. But we who have read the documents and appreciate the gift of our sacred tradition know that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a celebration of ourselves in a closed circle of affirmation; it is the Church’s worship of the Divine. It is one of the reasons I truly believe we need to recover the proper orientation of prayer through things like the ad orientem posture at the Eucharistic Prayer. It is the very thing discerned by millennia of Christian praxis in both East and West. It cannot be denied that it is a legitimate direction in prayer. [“Implementation, not the reform.” He attributes the problems to execution, not design, but doesn’t engage the fact that versus populum, and other options (not to mention didactic verbosity) are designed features of the Novus Ordo.  These are issues of structure, not merely abuse or implementation.]

However, I am anxious that many have abandoned the reform and fighting the good fight for tradition [He is using “tradition” here equivocally.] in favor of a withdrawal, [Here we go again with the “fear” and the “refuge/retreat” theme.] preferring to form a ghetto of isolation, [And here we go with a nasty stab.] rather than any attempt at reform, because there have been setbacks. This is where I see the wound that needs to be healed. And this is where we may disagree. That is ok.  [But all those people are, I suppose, blinkered…what… cowards?  Because they have run away from the good fight and cower in their ghettos?  What came to mind is the image of Russian soldiers in WWII whose officers stood behind them, driving them forward or shooting them if they stopped.  In the meantime, I might ask… who is it who truly “ghettoized” people who want traditional worship?  Honestly, who did what to whom?  Did they do it to themselves?]

Those opposed to these sacred traditions want you on the margins. [What the heck is this?] I want you squarely in the heart of the Church. They want you where you can’t influence others with your desire for the sacred traditions. I want you out front and visible with your love of sacred things. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. A lamp is not meant to be hidden. Many priests have reached out to me with hope these past couple of weeks about what we are moving to here. Traditional things in many places have been relegated to off-site locations since Traditionis Custodes. They see in this option the opportunity to expand more widely the traditional things their own people are asking for in the heart of the Church.  [Again, the implicit claim is that there really isn’t much difference between the TLM and the Novus Ordo wrapped up in traditional looking and sounding elements and celebrated according to the options that make it more like the TLM.  There is no effort to address the differences of content of the orations, for example, or elements of the ordo missae.]

We are listening. We feel with you. The Church loves you. The Pope loves you. The Bishop loves you.

I love you. I want what is good for you. You have a voice, and it is being heard, even if it is not precisely in the way you may desire.

[*eye roll*  Again with the condescension, as if he is talking to a tear-streaked little girl who had a nightmare about a monster under the bed.]

Some of that listening has already begun, and I would like to speak to you with answers as best I can. But know that I don’t have all the answers, and I couldn’t possibly give them all here, even if I did. Yes, some things will be different and there are some things we will miss. That happens with any change. But nothing essential will be lost – this is the act of faith I ask of you. What we will gain is an attempt at realizing the reform the universal Church called for. To quote G.K. Chesterton, “if a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly.” Thus, the benefit for us is to at least try, and I am sure it is going to be good, even if it isn’t perfect.  [Chesterton also said that it you want to tear down a fence, you should know why it was put there in the first place.]

Will this transition mean the end of a traditional understanding of the Mass? The short answer is no. The Doctrine on the Mass has not changed, nor could it ever. We can very clearly still see the four ends of the Mass of adoration, thanksgiving, expiation, and petition being fulfilled even in the current Mass. There may be certain emphasis on things like the actual participation of the faithful along with the priest at Mass, [a red herring] but there was no doctrinal change in the fundamental understanding of the Holy Sacrifice. You have heard me preach numerous times about the primacy of interior participation as the heart of actual participation. And I quote modern popes in doing so.

Will this transition mean a reduction of the understanding of the sacrificial nature of the Mass? The short answer is no. The Doctrine still stands that the Mass is the Holy Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary and His eternal offering of that sacrifice to the Father made present to us. The argument is sometimes made that the new Mass is more about the Lord’s Supper than about the Sacrifice of Christ. However, what is going on in the reform is a recovery of the importance of the reception of Holy Communion, and not just by the priest. His reception may be the minimum for the completion of the offering of Mass, but it does not and should not preclude the participation of the faithful in this Holy Communion either. Did you know that the rite for Communion of the faithful is in not present in the 1962 order of Mass? It is only an extra ritual inserted, from the front of the book, that you enjoy when you are invited to Holy Communion. The old order of Mass doesn’t ordinarily include a place for you. Your communion is only as a secondary consideration in the rubrics as they were received in 1962. [In fact, there is a specific rubric in the 1962 which directs the priest, before his purifies the chalice, to give Communion if there are people there who would receive.  So that isn’t quite correct.] In the Novus Ordo Missae, the Communion of the faithful is written straight in the order of Mass. [It’s in the 1962 Missale too.  I’ll insert an image to the right of the rubric in a 1962 Missale.] The recovery of the fact that the reception of Holy Communion by the faithful is an integral part of the Mass is a very good acknowledgement that the people matter, and the people are part of the Mass. Does it take away from the sacrifice of the Mass that the faithful are invited to sup with our Lord at Holy Communion? We are not losing the sacrifice; we are gaining a richer understanding that Holy Communion of the faithful is a part of the Mass.

Will this transition mean a reduction of the understanding of the sacrificial nature of the priesthood? The short answer is no. The Doctrine on the Priesthood has not changed, nor could it ever. [Is that so.   While I believe that the Church will stick officially to her definitions, one wonders what is happening when the “Synod of BISHOPS” is packed with laypeople who vote?  What is going on when a lay person can be appointed as head of a dicastery?  Praxis and altered prayers lead the way….] While the importance of the faithful and their role in the Mass is clarified, it has been reiterated multiple times by popes and official documents that this is not a clericalization of the laity or a laicization of the clergy. [Alas, when something needs to be “reiterated multiple times”, is that a demonstration that the reiterations aren’t working?] It doesn’t mean an army of laity should now take over the sanctuary. It simply means owning the part that rightly belongs to the people at Mass. The parts that the servers say are your parts. They just happen to do them for you because they are in the Latin language. But you are invited to do them, too! Did you know that already in the text of the old Mass, the Orate, fratres, speaks about meum ac vestrum sacrificium – your sacrifice? You may not have realized it, because the rubrics had the priest say it quietly, and only the servers would respond. Now, the priest will say it out loud, and you will be asked to respond. Nothing changes about the theology. All that is changing is that you are asked to own what is yours.  [How condescending.  I respond saying, “Father may not have realized it, but people in the pews have books to follow and if they have been there more than a couple times, they known this.]

Will this transition mean the end of pious traditions like the Ember Days and Septuagesima and the various other penitential practices throughout the year? The short answer is no. We were emphasizing these beautiful traditions even before our weekly celebration of the 1962 Missal. They continue to form a part of our heritage and tradition and can benefit us still, even if they will not have a formal liturgical space for them. What prevents us from continuing to honor them as devotional practices?  [Nothing prevents that… but don’t pretend it is the same.  Another way to put it might be “don’t (relieve yourself) on my boots and tell it it’s raining”.]

Again, I would recall that long before we were celebrating a weekly Mass in the vetus ordo, we were already celebrating the joy of our Catholic tradition here. Now we will have the benefit of bringing even more from the storehouse of sacred tradition with us.  [Hamlet 3.2.254]

With joy, I would like to share a few ways that will be taking shape in the transition. We will keep in devotion many things that before were done by ritual. The priest will continue praying the vesting prayers in the sacristy; [oh boy!] they are already there in the current Missal. [What about the maniple prayer?  Will you use a maniple, I wonder.  Probably not, because it was “reformed” out even though the Novus Ordo is silent and qui tacit consentire videtur.] We will be praying the prayers known as the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar together with the servers before Mass begins.  [That’s not in the newer Mass.] I invite you to do the same from your pews. We will be offering the traditional Asperges rite as a pre-Mass devotional. We are not pretending it is part of the new order, but neither are we denying it has goodness by itself. [There IS an Asperges in the newer Mass.] What I hope can come about is that rather than fearing the traditional elements will somehow overshadow the reform, we can now embrace them fully without fear, even as we receive the legitimate fruits of the reform. As Pope St. John Paul II often said, “Do not be afraid!” [Appropriate John Paul II, now, will ya!] Do not be afraid of our tradition, and do not be afraid of the call to reform.  [How many accusations of “fear” have we reached?]

[The next part might be subtitled “Wherein Father creates his own personalized Rite of Mass.  Dr. K referred to it as the Ritus Carteriensis.  At the foundation of this subjectively constructed Rite is the porting in of elements from the Vetus Ordo, never mind that early on in the “reform”, a response was given to a dubium about that which said, “Nope!  Can’t do that!”  Cf. the infamous Notitiae 14 of 1978.]

In the Mass we will transition to, wherever there is an option, the one that conforms most with the hermeneutic of continuity will always be chosen. All of the propers and ordinary for the Mass will be sung using the Graduale Romanum and Kyriale.  [The Novus Ordo Graduale includes the Kyriale.] These books were adapted and issued after the Second Vatican Council and are the official books of sacred music for the Church. The full Gradual will be sung. Our sacred music will continue to make use of polyphony and traditional choral pieces written for the Holy Mass. The Confiteor [the changed Confiteor] and absolution will be done at every Mass, something that many of you only read, but now you will able to participate by saying it. [Never mind participating in it by receiving the absolution.] The Roman Canon will be used and said out loud, but the microphone will be off. Thus, we will fulfill the requirement of saying it vox clara, but also respect the tradition of silence during the Canon. [So, it’s a dodge.] The priest will continue to face ad orientem, that is, towards the altar, during the Eucharistic Sacrifice. He will turn to the faithful at the appropriate times as indicated in the rubrics already in the current Missal. We will still bow our heads at the name of Jesus and the mention of our Lady and our patronal saints. The servers will continue to ring the bells, swing the thurible, hold the candles, and even lift the hem of the chasuble and many other things that add to the elevation of the most holy moments of the Mass. There is no reason to omit good things simply because they are not prescribed. If the faithful in many places choose to hold hands at the Our Father as a devotion, there is nothing to prevent continued devotion to traditional practices, especially if they will be used as aids to assist us who are wary of the excesses of the reform to embrace its authentic expression. The Creed will still be sung, and no one will stop you if you genuflect at the Incarnation; it is in fact called for by the rubrics of the new Mass at certain times of the year. No one is going to stop you if you repeat the Domine, non sum dignus, three times. No one is going to stop you from receiving our Eucharistic Lord kneeling and on the tongue at our beautiful altar rail. We will still have space for the St. Michael Prayer and the Marian antiphon after the Ite Missa Est.  [First, no one really can stop people from doing those things.  Next, and more serious, these graftings onto the Novus Ordo (Prayers at the Foot, etc.) is liturgy by bricolage: creating a para-1962 envelope around the Novus Ordo. It tacitly admits a perceived deficit within the reformed Ordo. Mixing rites collides with the long-standing Roman instinct (and official guidance) against hybridization.  The menu of options (Graduale, Roman Canon with the mic off, ad orientem, rail, triple Domine non sum dignus, etc.), smack of stitching up a bespoke “continuity” which itself dead ends in subjectivism. The faithful are to depend on the pastor’s policy (tastes) to experience elements most of which the old rites guaranteed. That undermines the homily’s appeal to stability and universality.  What if Father leaves or is away and Fr. Joe Bagofdonuts decides otherwise?]

With these and many more things like it, I hope at least some of the questions you have in your hearts have been addressed. This is not a black and white situation. It is not a duality, as some would suppose, between tradition and modernity. There are no clown Masses being offered here. [Damning with faint praise.] Only that which stands in fidelity to the universal call to reform made at the Second Vatican Council [Appeal to the Council remains weak.  What the Fathers of the Council mandate is decidedly not what we got.] and offered with the hermeneutic of continuity as our guide. This is reason to hope!

I invite you to ask for the spirit of peace and patience in these confusing times. I ask that as we follow the path of transition you do so with serenity, and trust in Divine Providence that He hears the cry of the poor and that we can always hope in the Lord.

I could spend a lot more time picking on this, but this is enough.

Dr. K also examined it: HERE