UPDATE: 7 Nov 2025
A commentator, below, wrote:
The Greensburg story might be fake news.
https://thecatholicherald.com/article/diocese-of-greensburg-denies-banning-ad-orientem-for-novus-ordo-masses
And also…
Yeah, I just talked to a representative of the Diocese of Greensburg, and he confirmed that Bishop Koulick has made no restrictions whatsoever on ad orientem Masses, and has no intention of doing so. Somebody was misinformed when they made that post.
Published on: Nov 6, 2025 at 16:01
UPDATE: At Tuesday’s presbyteral council meeting Bishop Martin requested that the use of altar rails be discontinued. We are hearing the meeting was contentious and 3 hours long. Canon lawyers were referenced. Priests & faithful: he can ask but cannot command. USE THE RAILS!
— Charlotte Latin Mass Community (@CLMCLatinMass) November 6, 2025
and… [UPDATE – the following seems to be FAKE NEWS – FYI the poster of the tweet is associated with LifeSite News.]
First they came for the Latin Mass, now bishops are banning ad orientem Novus Ordo Masses. pic.twitter.com/8d0nTPC4l5
— Sign of the Cross (@CatholicSOTC) November 6, 2025
Loading ...
I’ve been saying this for some time: In the NO, there are elements that are either directly or derivatives of TLM. There are also elements in the Choose Your Own Adventure that is the Mass are not related to the TLM or derivatives, but rather “spirit of Vatican II”^tm novelities. The end goal is getting rid of the TLM and TLM derivatives.
But let’s not kid ourselves. When we talk about “the reform of the reform,” what we mean is either conforming the “spirit of Vatican II”^tm elements to tradition or jettisoning them.
As we progress forward in history, it is going to become more and more apparent that “the middle way” where the NO contains both elements isn’t viable and is unworkable.
Is the episcopate bent on being regarded as clueless?
Do they have any idea how petty and mean-spirited these actions are?
Or maybe that is the idea.
I believe the words we’re looking for are: “going off the rails on a crazy train.”
(tongue-in-cheek) We are a synodal church unified by our diversity. We will show this by walking together in lockstep with no variation in our worship. All those options in the rubrics of N.O. will decided for you by the Politburo, I mean the Dicastery of Worship.
Seriously, do these bishops think the members of their flocks are stupid?
These current actions and decisions will lead many traditionalists and others to join SSPX churches where possible, and those that do not will cease to materially support the diocese.
For myself, I still have an oasis of a FSSP parish in my diocese so I have not yet been put to the test.
O Blessed Mother, pray for and intercede on behalf of your children!
They have no authority to stop ad-orientem Novus Ordo.
And no, I’m not dumb enough to think that means they can’t bully priests into stopping it, but it’s important to use words accurately. Using the word “ban” implies they are acting legitimately, which they’re not.
See John Lamont’s 2-part essay on the Rule of Law in the Catholic Church.
Pingback: FRIDAY EARLY-MORNING EDITION - BIG PVLPIT
I know that there have been discussions on the limits of obedience, but what recourse to diocesan priests have, practically speaking, whether great or small in number? Are we witnessing the smothering of the Church? Honestly.
Yet, I do profess Christ as King, and He is overseeing this, so we must not complain, but bear this cross in trusting love and faith. Thy will be done, Lord.
Not surprising because it was never really about Latin or the Liturgy. It is about stamping out authentic Catholicism. Altar rails mean receiving kneeling and on the tongue that emphasizes Christ’s true presence in the Eucharist and out need for humility in receiving Him. Not compatible with the new Synodal Church that celebrates Man over God. Similarly Ad Orientem puts God rather than Man at the center so that has to go.
The Greensburg story might be fake news.
https://thecatholicherald.com/article/diocese-of-greensburg-denies-banning-ad-orientem-for-novus-ordo-masses
I’ll try to find out more.
The Priests who pushed back against this abuse need prayers & support. It is good to hear the meeting became contentious-as it should have. The world has too many wolves to allow timid Shepards to safeguard the flock. I have only attended a couple of Latin masses, but we should all oppose Bishops who seek to micro-manage the faithful and impede acts of genuine piety- surely there are much,much bigger concerns in Charlotte than the use of communion rails or candles on the altar. The Bishop can’t see the forest for the weeds (not trees- he has too much of the mind of fussbudget bureaucratic midget to be blocked by trees).
I believe the words we’re looking for are: “going off the rails on a crazy train.”
I think it’s time for the words, “We’re not gonna take it. No! We’re not gonna take it. We’re not gonna take this anymore!”
On a more positive note. The bishop in my diocese has decided to use this “synod of synodality” to “humbly re-orient our liturgies” based on “lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.”
Yeah, I just talked to a representative of the Diocese of Greensburg, and he confirmed that Bishop Koulick has made no restrictions whatsoever on ad orientem Masses, and has no intention of doing so. Somebody was misinformed when they made that post.
The church militant has a militaristic structure to its hierarchy. Bishops have an authority over their priests and laity, but in return for that authority comes responsibility for the outcome of the mission, and responsibility for those under them.
At some point every one of these bishops will be called before God, and will have to make a report on the outcome of their mission, and an account for the souls that were entrusted to them.
What is success in regards to a military campaign? Does success entail losing a significant portion of your troops, abandoning large parts of your territory to the enemy, and entering into terms with the enemy to lay down your weapons? No, I don’t think that’s success at all, yet this is exactly what is happening within the church.
Our military commanders continue to use the same tactics that have failed time and time again, resulting in countless needless casualties, loss of moral, and giving vast swaths of territory away to the enemy. Their soldiers are begging them to let them use the more effective weapons they have stowed away, yet they not only refuse to use them, they decide as punishment for even asking, they’ll take away their rifles and give them a stick.
Is it any wonder there are so many deserters?
Lurker 59 is correct. There is no such thing as a middle way. The Anglicans tried it and now among them it is anything goes but the orthodox Catholic faith.
Regarding the other comments, I once had a Dean who tried to buy off his enemies on the faculty and count on his friends. As a result he eventually had no friends and finally his job. This is a classic mistake of administrators in higher education. I think the Vatican is making the same mistake. The liberals they are trying to buy off by watering down doctrine will never be their friends. Eventually, their true friends, traditionalists, will give up on them, while the liberals will continue to betray the Church.
As far as I know eastern rite liturgy is AO as it always has been if that’s helpful.
Pingback: FRIDAY EARLY-EVENING TOP-10 - BIG PVLPIT
So I see on the news that the Pope Leo and the Vatican extended a warm welcome today to actor Robert DeNiro. Do they have any idea that he celebrates the TLM ad orientem in the movie True Confessions (1981)??
Just posting a comment before all the “you Protestant trads need to just be obedient no matter what or you’re just a bunch of idol-worshipping heretics” talk. Sometimes I feel like I’m getting COVID flashbacks. “Just two more weeks of absurd restrictions and we’ll flatten the curve of Traditionalists!”
If anyone needed more proof that Vatican II was diabolical here it is.
They are out to destroy the True Mass. That’s right comrades. You will
Accept the “new mass” or else.
Plan A, remove Altar rails, Confession will be face to face, no saying Rosary in Church. No Solidarities. Communion in the hand. Altar girls, guitar playing.
Assaults against the Titles of the Blessed Virgin Mary (BIG MISTAKE).
I am wondering if the topic of ad orientum came up on its own with two sides contending on the matter at the meeting, and this was misconstrued.
We as a society have become overly sensitive without taking things in proper perspective. I believe it is the same within the church here in the U.S.
Someone once told me that the Internet has an immense amount of data, but considerably less actual information. When we read something on the Internet, we should always take it with a a grain (or salt shaker) of salt.
I think the Vatican is making the same mistake. The liberals they are trying to buy off by watering down doctrine will never be their friends.
Unfortunately, the bishops are the liberals. It is possible that the dumber ones imagine they can and should “buy off” secularist authorities like governments by appeasement and frontal surrender, but the smarter ones – who know that old liberalism is a dead end – do not appear to be intent on appeasement at all: they seem to be inviting unChristian powers into the governance of the Church directly.
“1. Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil. [Everything that follows rests on this premise. However, it is unclear what “embody” means. It is also unclear precisely which thing(s) is “evil” in the Council documents. There are things which are ambiguous and open to bad interpretations. That makes them vulnerable to people with evil intention.]
2. Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot
change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.
3. It is therefore impossible that the errors and evils officially
sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws
could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.
4. Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.
5. Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the
Faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of
ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even
to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a
heretic.
6. Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. Paul IV decreed that the election of such a pope would be invalid, and
that he would lack all authority.
7. Since the Church cannot defect but a pope as an individual can defect (as, a fortiori, can diocesan bishops), the best
explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we have
catalogued is that they proceeded (proceed) from individuals
who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, did (do) not objectively possess canonical
authority.”
From: Traditionalists,
Infallibility and the Pope
(1995, 2006)
by Rev. Anthony Cekada
https://traditionalmass.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/TradsInfall.pdf
From this commenter: “A thing is true or not true, regardless of whomsoever speaks.”
@Not, I’m afraid you are part of the problem, not the solution. Calling Vatican II “diabolical”, is blasphemous and schismatic. None of the things you go on to list were mandated or even mentioned in the council documents. The rosary is regularly recited in all my local parishes (across two deaneries). I can go to confession anonymously in all of them if I choose. I can receive communion on the tongue too, although altar rails are sadly not in use. There are two masses at which guitars are regularly used but most have well trained choirs with English and some Latin polyphony and a few traditional mass ordinaries plus hymn singing. Altar girls are in evidence, but my ‘home’ parish has a predominance of well trained and reverent boys. Is it all ideal? No. But attitudes like yours feed into the narrative that “traditionalism” is a cover for schism and various forms of sedevacantism. Sincere traditionalists need to clearly distance themselves from such opinions voiced in their name.
@Loquitur
“Sincere traditionalists need to clearly distance themselves from such opinions voiced in their name.”
People keep saying this, but I don’t see how it follows that every single person needs a press office because someone that they are more or less accidentally associated with happens to espouse opinions which are different, eccentric, or heretical. Who nominated such a person to speak for me?
And why would it matter what such a person thinks? They have no office of authority.
Cardinal Burke speaks for me, a successor of the Apostles and Prince of the Church. My personal opinions which may vary ‘per accidens’ are inconsequential and of little value.
@TheCavalierHatherly, A fair point. I wasn’t trying to imply some moral obligation on you or anyone else to chime in wherever and whenever extreme positions are articulated. However, in today’s social media dominated world, I do feel it wise for someone to challenge such rash and erroneous statements whenever possible. I have seen first hand how a TLM Mass was shut down (before TC), largely due to the vociferousness of such intemperate agitators. It may be unfair that many good people get tarred with the same brush in those circumstances, but that is what is happening in many places. Granted that there are those who are implacably opposed to Tradition in any case and they will not be won over without a miracle of grace (not impossible), but there are well-meaning although not always well-informed people, some in very high authority, who watch and listen from afar. If schismatic opinions go unchallenged in traditionalist settings, it can easily serve to confirm the prejudicial narrative that is being dripped into their ears.
@ TheCavalierHatherly, while not every traditionalist needs his own press office, the comment two above yours is a commenter citing a prominent sedevacantist saying that Vatican II was evil.
That’s not who Loquitur was replying to, but it’s reasonable to ask people who say such things about the council if they’re willing to recognize the magisterium of the conciliar and post-conciliar popes and condemn those who don’t, because a fair share of those who use similar language are sedevacantist or sedeprivationists, ideologies which are unquestionably formally schismatic.
@Loquitur
My wife had a childhood dog that ran towards a cow once, got shocked by an electric fence, and then spent the rest of its life scared of cows (presumably assuming they possessed arcane powers).
I suppose it too much to ask that the higher clergy don’t make similarly flimsy abductions as a border collie?
@R2D
Can we also point out as equally schismatic all those who hold the post-conciliar magisterium as some sort of SUPER magisterium whose pronouncements and teachings can directly contradict previous Church teachings and who reject any questioning of such contradictory teachings as a sin against obedience? Because I see an awful lot of that now-a-days, and I can’t see how that’s not a clearly schismatic position with reference to the Universal Church as it has existed since long before Vatican II. Can we view all the Catholics who don’t like the TLM with a jaundiced eye because they’re not consistently rebuking the many public voices who claim the only true teaching magisterium is the post-VII magisterium? Are Novus Ordo Catholics to be shamed because they’re not clamoring for more Latin in the Novus Ordo per the written decrees of Vatican II?
If not, then your position seems skewed as merely anti-Traditionalist bias. Wouldn’t the mature position be to accept that there are jerks on all sides whenever human beings are involved, and that the reasonable thing to do is to not dictate Church policy and teaching based on the loudest jerk on social media but rather on the actual merits, arguments, and benefits of the position? Otherwise it would be fine to toss out the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas so long as one found enough Dominican jerks to claim the entire Order should be suppressed for the “good” of the Church.
@WVC — no, we’re not doing that false equivalence.
Doctrine can develop and people can have reasonable disagreements as to what and how legitimate doctrinal development works and it is the role of the Church’s ordinary magisterium to determine how to implement the council and any associated development.
Calling for unity with the bishops and obedience to the bishops as they exercise this role is not schismatic. The bishops and their supporters might be wrong, but they’re not advocating schism or expounding schismatic ideas.
Saying that Leo XIV is not the pope is schismatic. Saying he doesn’t have the fullness of the papacy is schismatic. Same applies to all the conciliar and post-conciliar popes. Disagreeing on how legitimate development of doctrine should work is not schismatic.
@R2D – I think you’re actually making my point for me. “It’s reasonable to have disagreements on how development of doctrine” can work. Yup.
If it’s fair for you to call for the current bishops and popes to hold the only meaningful explanation for how doctrine develops and claim obedience and unity with the current bishops and pope is of the utmost importance, then I’d say it’s also fair for others to disagree and hold that the teaching of the long line of bishops and pope that existed before Vatican II are of the utmost importance and that unity with them is critical without having to be called schismatic.
c.f. the teaching regarding the Death Penalty.
One can argue that Pope Leo can enjoy the fullness of the papacy while simultaneously holding that there are legitimate limitations to the authority of the papacy without being “schismatic.”
Let’s stop the name calling. I’d love it if folks could stop calling all Traditionalists schismatics or protestants or idol worshippers just because we don’t follow the call of “unity to the current thing uber alles.”
@WVC — except my point that you were replying to was that KerryH was literally quoting a well known sedevacantist calling Vatican II evil and saying that popes and bishops lack canonical authority.
I might very much disagree with some traditionalists, but I don’t think they’re all (or even most) are schismatic.
I do think that anyone who holds to sedevacantism or sedeprivationism are materially and formally in schism. There’s also a fairly high correlation between usage of adjectives like “diabolical” and “evil” surrounding the council and people who espouse sedevacantism (see the quote from Cekada above; point 1 and 7.)
When you have people throwing around those terms, it’s reasonable to ask them if they accept the legitimacy of the popes since Pius XII, and their possession of magisterial authority. That’s not most traditionalists (Cekada split from the SSPX because Lefebreve was too pro-Rome in his view, as an example), but we’ve seen examples in this very thread as to why people get very skeptical when people start attacking the legitimacy of the council in certain ways.
@R2D – I’m just tired of the name calling. And you did it again. You go from one guy using questionable terms to “it’s reasonable to question everyone who’s a Traditionalist if they accept the legitimacy of the papacy.”
I’m tired of folks defending other folks trashing Traditionalists by saying things like, “well, they have a good reason to be wary and skeptical because some Traditionalists are jerks, you know.” I’m sorry, but I expect adults, especially Church leaders, to be able to make assessments at a level more mature than middle school girls on social media.
“attacking the legitimacy of THE council” – just so that you understand that the jerks exist on both sides, I’ve not only been called schismatic because I’ve argued that the Traditional Latin Mass was not and cannot be abrogated but I’ve been told by pious Catholics of the Novus Ordo variety that my wife’s soul was in Hell because she must have died as a schismatic because she loved the Traditional Latin Mass. While you say “I don’t think they’re all schismatics” you then turn around and say “it’s reasonable to ask them if they accept the legitimacy of the papacy.” How can you not see that this is just name calling once removed? It’s like saying, “While I don’t think all Asians are bad drivers, it’s reasonable to ask them if they’ve ever been in any accidents or gotten any tickets before riding in a car with them.” (example chosen because I’m Korean, to ward off any potential Karens out there)
Why does Vatican II get to be a litmus test for being Catholic? How on earth does “THE” council get so much more prominence than every other council? If this is fair, then I think it’s just as fair to ask the anti-Traditionalists like yourself to swear allegiance to Trent and to state their belief in the acceptability of the Death Penalty as contra-litmus tests.
Or perhaps we can just stop the name calling. If someone states a criticism of Vatican II, perhaps responding to the criticism vice “you’re a sedevecantist or schismatic” is the better path? (kind of like what Fr. Z did)
And I’m sorry if I didn’t catch the quote being literally from a well-known sedevacantist as I don’t read sedevacantists, including whomever Cekada is. But I note the commenter clearly recognized Cekada might be an objectionable source per the last line of his comment.