The cruelty taking place under Leo XIV is becoming loud and deafening. Rome does nothing.
Tragic.
And not even one alternative venue was offered in a diocese of 14,000 square miles occupying all of East Tennessee. The current bishop was named by Francis last year.
Document below:
(Source and tip: @discipulus777, on X)
--
Update: If that were not enough, the faithful in the Novus Ordo mass in one of the venues, the Basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul, in Chattanooga, were subjected to this simultaneously pseudo-overeducated and misinformed homily haranguing them about the Traditional Mass. Gross: just your usual cruel priest, in a war against faithful Catholics and requesting "obedience" (click for better view). (Second Update: Following the homily, the response of the International Una Voce Federation.)
(Update #2: The International Una Voce Federation - FIUV responds to the insulting homily.)
My heart goes out to Catholics in the USA attached to the traditional Mass, whose persecution continues. This letter by the Very Rev. Fr Carter of Chattanooga is sadly typical of the rationalisations being offered for this, and it is a catalogue of half-truths.[1] 'Sts Peter & Paul is a Novus Ordo parish.' An attempt to insinuate the TLM is intrinsically problematic, but there no category in canon law of 'Novus Ordo parish'. Any parish can have any legitimate rite or usage in it: Ordinariate, Maronite etc.. 'the primary purpose [of the TLM] was mutual enrichment.' No: the purpose of the liturgy is the sanctification of souls and the glory of God: see the GIRM. It not some liturgical maniac's pet project to see what exciting changes he can introduce into this or that rite.
[2] 'Bishop Beckman is a man under authority.' Right, so this is about obedience? And not some anti-trad agenda? Really? Then why is Bishop Beckman not obeying the first stated instruction of TC, to make provision for the TLM, if not in a parish, then in some other way? The replacement Novus Ordo will be ad orientem, Latin & Chant -great.
[3] This 'will ensure that the treasures of our tradition are preserved while remaining in full communion.' This insinuates the TLM is not in 'full communion', which TC shows is false & is grossly uncharitable. The author, Fr Carter, celebrated the TLM. Was he out of communion while doing so? The FSSP received a decree from Pope Francis affirming their right to celebrate the TLM: are they out of communion?
[4] Will the traddied-up NO really 'preserve the treasures of our tradition'? Clearly Pope Benedict didn't think so, because giving these treasures their proper place meant allowing the TLM. Obviously the NO does not 'preserve' the ancient Lectionary, Offertory, silent Canon, sung Latin Lections, Preparatory Prayers, Season of Septuagesima, Last Gospel, formula for Holy Communion, ancient Collects, subdeacon at High Mass, Lavabo, Priestly Prayers &c. &c. -- it's like the 'same cup of tea' without the milk, sugar, tea, or cup. The problem is not that it is not *Mass*: it is a valid Mass, but it is not, except in a bare legal sense, the same *Rite*, which is why Pope Benedict called the TLM the 'antecedent liturgical tradition'. The NO is a new tradition -- if that is possible.
[5] 'We will no longer be divided by differing calendars or feasts' 'albeit in a diversity of languages'. So in this parish they have several languages? I take it, too, that the priests of the basilica can choose what NO 'optional memorials' and votive Masses to celebrate. Then again as we all know there is a bewildering variety of options in the NO. So there will actually be no simple unity of worship in the basilica. There will be different Mass formularies, different Eucharistic Prayers, different feasts, and different languages. Any why not? It is still one single Sacrifice offered to God. But so is the TLM. And if the TLM has to be removed to maintain unity, what of the Maronites, the Byzantine Rite, or the Ordinariate? I sincerely hope that Fr Carter accepts Vatican II's Orientalium Ecclesiarum.
[6] The next part of the letter insinuates that a concern for liturgical rites is the mark of being 'Protestant'. I wonder what Byzantine Rite Catholics, who have had to fight hard to preserve their Rite over the centuries, would make of that. Or indeed Protestants. Actually, to care deeply not just for the sacraments, but for the liturgical forms in which they are embedded, is the mark of Catholics, and unity within the context of legitimate liturgical diversity is the mark of the Catholic Church.
[7] The claims about the SSPX are fascinating. (a) they preserve 'venerable liturgical forms' (b) 'outside full obedience to the Vicar of Christ' (c) their 'canonical status is irregular' (d) the 'faithful are not encouraged to attend'. Ok, but *can* you? (e) 'participation in such communities, when it expresses a rejection of the Church's legitimate authority, can constitute a true rupture of communion'. So, you *can*? And if you want to reject the Papacy, you obviously can do that too, but that's not implied. What it doesn't mention is that Pope Francis gave SSPX priests faculties to hear confessions and facilitated the celebration of their marriages. So clearly those attending are Catholics in good standing. This letter tries to insinuate the opposite of *what it knows is true*.
[Conclusion:] How can one dialogue with someone who repeatedly insinuates claims he knows are false? The persecution of the TLM is revealing. 'And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed:' ut revelentur ex multis cordibus cogitationes. Lk 2:35 [Source: FIUV on X]
