EXCLUSIVE: Letter to Cardinals Offers Solution for TLM Ahead of Pope Leo XIV’s First Consistory

Could an ecclesiastical jurisdiction for the traditional Roman liturgy resolve the impasse created by “Traditionis Custodes”?

(Photo credit: Vatican Media)

ROME, 5 January 2026 — In view of the liturgy being on the agenda at the extraordinary consistory of cardinals convened by Pope Leo XIV this week, one of France’s most senior traditionalist clergy has sent members of the Sacred College a letter proposing a new path for the ancient Roman Rite in the Catholic Church.

Published here exclusively in French and English, the letter aims to open a constructive dialogue and provide a stable pastoral framework for communities and faithful devoted to the traditional Roman liturgy.

Written by Father Louis-Marie de Blignières, founder of the Fraternity of Saint Vincent Ferrer, and dated Dec. 24, the letter was sent in hard copy to fifteen cardinals known for their concern for the traditional liturgy, and to an additional hundred cardinals by email. At its core is a proposal to establish an ecclesiastical jurisdiction—modeled in principle on Military Ordinariates—dedicated to the vetus ordo, offering a canonical structure that respects both tradition and communion with the Holy See.

Father de Blignières, 76, is widely regarded as having considerable moral authority and extensive experience in the traditionalist movement. In 1988, following the illicit episcopal consecrations by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Father de Blignières was among the clergy who engaged in dialogue with Pope John Paul II, contributing to discussions that led to the creation of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei to reconcile groups attached to the traditional rite.

He served as prior of the Fraternity of Saint Vincent Ferrer from its founding in 1979 until 2011, and again from 2017 to 2023, leading the community for more than three decades across two terms.

The concept of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction dedicated to the Old Rite is not new and has been discussed, particularly among French traditionalist communities, for the past decade. Those conversations, however, largely paused after Pope Francis’ 2021 motu proprio, Traditionis Custodes, which imposed severe restrictions on the vetus ordo.

To understand how such a jurisdiction might function in practice, I spoke with Father Matthieu Raffray, Superior of the European District of the Institute of the Good Shepherd and a former philosophy lecturer at the Angelicum in Rome. Fr. Raffray, who is familiar with the letter and supportive of its proposal, brings extensive pastoral and institutional experience, as well as a social media apostolate that has led many people — particularly young adults — to convert or return to the Catholic faith.

In this interview, we discuss how an ecclesiastical jurisdiction dedicated to the ancient Roman liturgy might work—from its relation to ex-Ecclesia Dei communities, to priestly formation, to its impact on the celebration of the traditional liturgy in existing dioceses.

Father Raffray notes that the letter was not sent to Pope Leo XIV and is not a “request or demand.” Rather, he says, it is “a working hypothesis addressed to cardinals” ahead of the Jan. 7-8 consistory, and would naturally need to be examined and developed further, particularly with the assistance of canonists.

Such an approach, he says, “acknowledges from the outset that this proposal is not the only possible solution. It is likely that some members of traditional communities may not favor this path or may suggest alternative avenues of study. The letter does not seek to impose a uniform response, but to open a serious and reasoned discussion.”

According to Father Raffray, the letter’s most positive element is its constructive, proactive approach which aims at strengthening “ecclesial unity, in a spirit of communion and in service to the Holy See.”

Here is my interview with Father Matthieu Raffray.

---

Diane Montagna (DM): Fr. Raffray, what is the central aim of the letter sent to the cardinals by Father de Blignières?

Fr. Matthieu Raffray (MR): Its central aim is to propose a stable and constructive ecclesial solution to an opposition that has grown sterile and divided the Church for many years — between those attached to the ancient Latin rite and those who oppose it. Observing the pastoral and human impasse produced by this recurring conflict, the text seeks to move beyond confrontation and to open a positive path in the service of ecclesial communion.

This prolonged opposition has caused real suffering, particularly within communities attached to the traditional liturgy, which have often been placed in a situation of institutional fragility and, at times, confronted with attitudes suggesting that they have no legitimate future within the Church. The letter takes this reality seriously and underlines the urgency of a just, peaceful, and lasting solution.

In this perspective, it proposes the erection of a dedicated ecclesiastical jurisdiction—such as a personal apostolic administration or an ordinariate—providing a stable canonical framework for priests and faithful who are fully in communion with the Holy See and attached to the ancient Latin rite. Far from presenting this liturgy as a threat or as a nostalgic retreat into an idealized past, the text emphasizes its present fruitfulness as a genuine means of sanctification and evangelization, particularly in highly secularized societies.

Thus, the letter does not seek to revive a liturgical controversy, but to offer a pragmatic institutional response, in continuity with the Church’s living tradition, which has repeatedly devised juridical structures to safeguard unity while respecting legitimate diversity. Its distinctive merit lies in proposing a constructive way out of an impasse, rather than entering into a new phase of internal confrontation.

(DM): The letter proposes an ecclesiastical jurisdiction analogous in some respects to Military Ordinariates. For readers unfamiliar with these structures, could you explain how the proposed jurisdiction would function, particularly with regard to cumulative jurisdiction and relationships with local bishops of already existing dioceses?

(MR): The letter draws on the analogy of Military Ordinariates to show how the proposed solution could be integrated harmoniously into existing diocesan structures. A Military Ordinariate is a personal ecclesiastical jurisdiction, defined not by territory but by the persons who belong to it due to a particular pastoral need. In the present case, this need would consist in a free and voluntary attachment to the traditional liturgy.

The proposed jurisdiction would therefore overlap with territorial dioceses without replacing them, within a framework of complementarity and communion. The bishop entrusted with this structure—at the level of a country or a linguistic area—would work in coordination with diocesan bishops in order to discern, according to local contexts, the most appropriate pastoral arrangements.

A key point in this proposal is that it does not seek to isolate the faithful attached to the traditional liturgy, but rather to offer them a clear and legitimate pastoral framework, accessible to anyone who may benefit from it, whether on a temporary or a long-term basis. Placed under the authority of the Holy See and in harmony with local Ordinaries, such a jurisdiction could thus contribute to a more peaceful pastoral care, in the service of communion and unity within the Church.

What would the creation of an Ordinariate or personal ecclesiastical jurisdiction for the Vetus Ordo mean concretely for former Ecclesia Dei communities, such as your own? Is the intention that these communities would come under the authority of such an Ordinariate? Given the diversity among these communities, how would concerns about autonomy or charism be addressed?

Concretely, such a solution would not entail any substantial change in the status or internal life of the communities formerly associated with the Ecclesia Dei Commission. These institutes would retain their canonical autonomy, their proper governance, and their specific charism. As is already the case, their priests could be placed at the service of different ecclesial realities through clearly defined agreements: either within territorial dioceses, or, where pastoral needs so require, within the proposed Ordinariate or personal jurisdiction.

The relationships between these communities, the authority of the Ordinariate, and diocesan bishops would be regulated by clear canonical arrangements, ensuring respect for the respective competencies of each and full ecclesial communion. Such a configuration would allow the liturgical and pastoral experience of these communities to be placed at the service of the Church without absorbing or standardizing them, while offering a more stable and intelligible juridical framework for their mission.

How would priestly formation be organized within such an ecclesiastical jurisdiction? Would it envisage its own seminaries, shared seminaries, or cooperation with existing institutions? How would formation ensure both fidelity to tradition and full ecclesial communion?

In principle, an Ordinariate or a personal ecclesiastical jurisdiction could have its own seminary, provided that the pastoral, human, and institutional conditions allow for it. Such a possibility would, however, require prudent and gradual discernment and could not be envisaged in a uniform or immediate manner.

In practice, the organization of priestly formation would need to be adapted to the realities of each country or geographical area. Depending on the context, this could take various forms: the establishment of proper seminaries where the number of candidates and the stability of structures justify it; formation programs carried out within diocesan seminaries; or formation provided in seminaries or houses of formation belonging to communities specialized in the celebration of the traditional liturgy. Mixed solutions could also be envisaged, allowing for shared formation in certain academic disciplines while ensuring specific liturgical and spiritual formation.

Such a gradual and pragmatic approach, grounded in real pastoral needs, would provide the necessary guarantees to ensure both fidelity to the liturgical and doctrinal tradition proper to the Vetus Ordo and full insertion into ecclesial communion, under the authority of the Holy See and in coordination with the Church’s existing structures of formation.

What practical effects would the establishment of such a jurisdiction have on the use of the Vetus Ordo within existing dioceses, and on diocesan clergy who wish to celebrate it?

The establishment of a personal ecclesiastical jurisdiction dedicated to the Vetus Ordo would have primarily pastoral and pragmatic effects, to be discerned on a case-by-case basis, according to local circumstances. In dioceses where the local bishop and the faithful concerned are satisfied with existing arrangements, there would be no requirement to alter the current organization: the use of the Vetus Ordo could continue to be exercised fully within the ordinary diocesan framework.

By contrast, in situations marked by tension, or where a new group of faithful emerges, the proposed jurisdiction would provide a clear framework for mediation and coordination. In such cases, it would fall to the Ordinary of the personal jurisdiction to enter into dialogue with the diocesan Ordinary in order to identify the most appropriate pastoral solutions, with due respect for the respective competencies of each and for the good of the faithful.

With regard to diocesan clergy, several possibilities could be envisaged. Diocesan priests might be made available to the personal jurisdiction for a limited period or could request permanent incardination within it. This practice would follow an already well-established canonical model, comparable to that of diocesan priests who are assigned, either temporarily or definitively, to the service of Military Ordinariates.

Thus understood, the creation of such a jurisdiction would not aim to deprive dioceses of their clergy or to impose rigid solutions, but rather to offer canonical flexibility capable of responding more serenely to pastoral needs connected with the use of the Vetus Ordo, in the service of ecclesial peace and communion.

Given the geographical overlap between dioceses and the proposed ecclesiastical jurisdiction, could this structure offer solutions in situations involving church closures, underused buildings, or declining parochial life?

The question of places of worship and parochial structures once again calls for differentiated responses, grounded in pragmatic pastoral discernment and attentive to local realities. The geographical coexistence of territorial dioceses and a personal ecclesiastical jurisdiction would make it possible to offer flexible solutions to a wide range of situations.

In certain parts of the world, particularly in Europe, where an increasing number of churches are closed or underused, such a jurisdiction could provide a fruitful pastoral response. Church buildings could be entrusted to the Ordinariate by diocesan bishops through clearly defined agreements, ensuring both the preservation of ecclesiastical patrimony and the restoration of a stable liturgical and pastoral life.

In other contexts, for example in Latin America or Asia, where ecclesial dynamics are different and pastoral needs are more oriented toward growth than restructuring, the Ordinariate could instead encourage the construction of new places of worship, supported by local communities. Depending on circumstances, the acquisition of existing buildings suitable for liturgical and pastoral use could also be envisaged.

Thus, by virtue of its personal nature and its capacity for coordination with local Ordinaries, such a jurisdiction would be well placed to contribute in a realistic and orderly manner to the management of places of worship, supporting pastoral vitality where it is fragile and fostering a more fruitful use of existing ecclesial resources, always in a spirit of communion and respect for the responsibilities of diocesan bishops.

As the letter notes, this solution has been proposed several times in the past. Pope Benedict XVI established the Anglican Ordinariates through the 2009 Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus yet chose a different approach—Summorum Pontificum—to address the Vetus Ordo. Why do you believe that a personal jurisdiction would be an appropriate or even preferable solution today?

Since the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, traditional communities and groups tried to work directly with the parishes and dioceses, but the fact is that in some places it worked very well, while in other places it did not. Therefore, it seems reasonable to find a new solution and not to return to Summorum Pontificum.

The relevance today of a solution based on the establishment of a personal ecclesiastical jurisdiction rests, first of all, on a theological clarification. Indeed, the successive approaches to the Vetus Ordo have brought to light a real tension concerning its liturgical status. Pope Benedict XVI, in Summorum Pontificum, proposed a unifying interpretation by speaking of two forms—ordinary and extraordinary—of the one Roman rite. Pope Francis, by contrast, has explicitly affirmed that there exists only one form of the Roman rite, namely that which resulted from the liturgical reform.

Faced with this apparent contradiction, the most coherent solution would seem to be the recognition, de facto if not yet fully de iure, of the existence of two distinct Latin rites: an ancient or traditional Latin rite, and a reformed Latin rite. Such recognition would make it possible to move beyond a conceptual opposition that has become increasingly difficult to sustain, while offering a clearer theological and canonical framework.

The peaceful coexistence of two Latin rites would, moreover, be in keeping with the Church’s own tradition, which has long known how to accommodate a plurality of rites within the unity of ecclesial communion. It also corresponds to the Gospel image of the wise householder who “brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old,” acknowledging that the fruitfulness of tradition lies not in exclusion, but in the ordered integration of what has been received and what has been developed.

From this perspective, a personal ecclesiastical jurisdiction would appear not merely as a pastoral solution, but as the appropriate institutional expression of a theological reality that has now reached maturity: namely, the existence of two Latin rites called to coexist peacefully, in the service of the unity of the Church and of her evangelizing mission.

Was the letter sent to Pope Leo XIV?

To the best of my knowledge, the text was not sent directly to the Pope. This point itself is significant, for the letter does not present itself as a request or a demand, but rather as a working hypothesis addressed to cardinals in a preparatory context. It is proposed as a contribution to reflection, intended to be examined and developed further, particularly with the assistance of canonists.

Such an approach acknowledges from the outset that this proposal is not the only possible solution. It is likely that some members of traditional communities may not favor this path or may suggest alternative avenues of study. The letter does not seek to impose a uniform response, but to open a serious and reasoned discussion.

What appears most positive in this text is precisely this constructive spirit. Traditionalist communities have often been criticized for adopting a primarily reactive or critical posture. Here, by contrast, the letter seeks to contribute proactively to the building up of ecclesial unity, in a spirit of communion and in service to the Holy See.