Logical Fallacies

in Protocol Letter No. B 319/25

Bishop Michael T. Martin

1.     Contradiction in Acknowledging the Holy Spirit’s Work:

Bishop Martin affirms that “God has been at work in [our] lives through this particular celebration, and it is hard to imagine how the Holy Spirit could want otherwise.” Yet, the letter proceeds to restrict that very celebration. This presents a logical inconsistency—if the Holy Spirit is evidently at work through the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), it is difficult to understand how the Holy Spirit could simultaneously desire its suppression.

2.     False Dichotomy Between Unity and Liturgical Diversity:

Bishop Martin suggests that two forms of the Roman Rite necessarily foster division. However, the Church has long embraced multiple rites (Byzantine, Maronite, Ambrosian, Mozarabic) without equating diversity with disunity. Framing the choice as either uniformity or division risks creating a false dichotomy.

3.     Begging the Question on Division:

The claim that the existence of two forms “furthered division” assumes the very point it seeks to prove. No evidence is provided that the TLM itself causes division; rather, division likely arises from other pastoral or cultural factors.

4.     Appeal to Authority Without Pastoral Justification:

Bishop Martin leans heavily on papal authority (“as was his right”) as sufficient rationale. While papal authority is real, invoking it alone does not address the pastoral impact on the faithful in Charlotte. Authority explains what is required, but not why this serves the good of souls locally.

5.     Equivocation on Parish Engagement:

The faithful are told to remain engaged in their parishes, yet their central act of parish life—Sunday worship—is relocated elsewhere. This redefines “parish engagement” in a way that contradicts the Church’s own understanding of the parish as the locus of both sacramental and communal life.

6.     Straw Man Minimization of Liturgical Attachment:

The statement that “God’s grace is not limited by our sacramental celebrations” risks misrepresenting the faithful’s attachment to the TLM. No one claims grace is limited to one form; rather, they recognize that form and ritual profoundly shape how grace is received and lived.

7.     Practical Inconsistency: Accessibility Versus Restriction:

The letter presents the Little Flower Chapel as a provision for all who desire the TLM, yet it seats only 350—far fewer than the current community. This creates a practical contradiction between the stated intent and the actual capacity.

8.     Tone vs. Policy:

The letter’s consoling tone speaks of accompaniment and grace, yet the policy enacted is one of sharp restriction and displacement. This rhetorical dissonance risks leaving the faithful feeling unheard and condescended to, rather than genuinely accompanied.