Fatal Flaws Exposed in Cardinal Roche’s Consistory Briefing Document
Accomplished liturgical scholar dismantles guidance to the Sacred College by the prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship.
ROME, 28 January 2026 — A skilled liturgical scholar has exposed serious flaws in Cardinal Arthur Roche’s recent briefing document to the College of Cardinals, offering a detailed critique ahead of their next meeting with Pope Leo XIV in late June.
In a systematic, point-by-point analysis, Dom Alcuin Reid, an Australian-born Benedictine monk, priest, and internationally recognized liturgical scholar, concludes that Roche’s briefing document “lacks intellectual honesty,” “displays a woeful ignorance of liturgical history,” and is “embarrassing in the extreme.”
Although the document was not discussed at the Jan. 7–8 consistory of cardinals due to time constraints, it drew widespread criticism after circulating in the media. The liturgy is expected to be addressed at the next consistory convened by the Pope on June 27–28.
Dom Alcuin Reid, whose doctoral work on liturgical reform was published as The Organic Development of the Liturgy with a preface by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, further argues that the briefing paper’s “denigration” of the traditional Roman liturgy, and its “cheap indictment” of those devoted to it, appears driven more by politics than by pastoral care.
“That this document bears the name of the Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments renders it nothing less than a scandal,” Fr. Reid asserts. “If it is the work of the Prefect himself, he should ‘consider his position,’ as politicians in his native country would say. If it is the work of his staff, he should consider their positions as well, while accepting ultimate responsibility for having distributed it to members of the Sacred College.”
Here is Dom Alcuin Reid’s full critical analysis. Permission required for reprint.
A Critical Examination of the Briefing Document of Arthur Cardinal Roche, Distributed to the College of Cardinals at the Extraordinary Consistory, Rome, 7-8 January 2026
Dom Alcuin Reid[1]
Introduction
The briefing document on the Sacred Liturgy distributed to the College of Cardinals at their Extraordinary Consistory from 7-8 January 2026 has drawn widespread criticism. Given that the liturgy was not in the end discussed at the Consistory, and given that it may reasonably be assumed that it will be considered at the Extraordinary Consistory scheduled for June 2026, it seems opportune to examine this document systematically and critically so that the College of Cardinals, and others, may have the benefit of an analysis of the topics raised.
In order to facilitate easy reference, this critique will first reproduce each article of the briefing paper and offer specific observations in respect of it. It shall then offer some further considerations in the light of the issues that the briefing paper raises, before concluding with some general observations. Sources will be noted throughout.
I. Specific observations
Article 1. In the life of the Church, the Liturgy has always undergone reforms. From the Didachè to the Traditio Apostolica; from the use of Greek to that of Latin; from the libelli precum to the Sacramentaries and the Ordines; from the Pontificals to the Franco-Germanic reforms; from the Liturgia secundum usum romanæ curiæ to the Tridentine reform; from the partial post-Tridentine reforms to the general reform of the Second Vatican Council. The history of the Liturgy, we might say, is the history of its continuous ‘reforming’ in a process of organic development.
The language of this article is disingenuous. A legitimate distinction is made between liturgical “development” and liturgical “reform” whereby the former implies a gradual, almost natural development with authority ratifying, promoting or extending practices that have grown up in the life of the Church,[2] whereas “reform”, at least in contemporary parlance, implies the positive if not substantial intervention by authority to re-order the liturgy according to its own, external, criteria.
Disproportionate positivist intervention by authority is unknown in the history of the Western rite until the twentieth century,[3] and reached its zenith after the Second Vatican Council. Not even the Carolingian reform may be said to have imposed (it rather proposed).[4] So too, the reform of the Council of Trent, whilst pruning and tidying and at times correcting earlier developments, was by no means a positivist intervention that substantially changed the rite. Rather, the rite the Council inherited was respected and restored. Its ritual integrity remained intact.[5]
Hence, it is untrue to assert that “the Liturgy has always undergone reforms”, and this false historical assertion can certainly not be used as an a priori justification for any given liturgical reform in se, nor as a justification for interventions by authority that fail to respect the integrity of the inherited liturgical tradition.
So too, we must be clear that the Second Vatican Council called for a liturgical “instaurationem”—a renewal of the liturgy—in continuity with the aims of the late-nineteenth and early twentieth century liturgical movement. “Instaurare” appears more than twenty times in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. The words “reformare” or “reformatio” were not used by the Council Fathers. They did not anticipate or authorise a positivistic “reform,” but a renewal in organic continuity with the received tradition. In this respect it is apposite to recall the full text of article 23 of Sacrosanctum Concilium:
That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also, the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.
As far as possible, notable differences between the rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided. [6]
Hence, we must reject the equation of the “continuous ‘reforming’” of the liturgy with its “organic development”. At best this is an equivocation. At worst it hides the unchecked wielding of positivistic authority behind the principle of organic development, itself rightly respected by the Council. Neither liturgical history nor the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy can legitimately be called upon to this end.
Article 2. Saint Pius V, in facing the reform of the liturgical books in observance of the mandate of the Council of Trent (cf. Session XXV, General Decree, chap. XXI), was moved by the will to preserve the unity of the Church. The bull Quo primum (14 July 1570), with which was promulgated the Roman Missal, affirms that «as in the Church of God there is only one way of reciting the psalms, so there ought to be only one rite for celebrating the Mass» (cum unum in Ecclesia Dei psallendi modum, unum Missae celebrandae ritum esse maxime deceat).
This article is gravely intellectually dishonest in that:
It distorts the intent the Council of Trent in general and of the bull Quo Primum in particular. Trent asked the bishops to correct abuses, not to remake or standardise their rites, and Quo Primum included the explicit provision that rites with more than 200 years of legitimate practice were exempt from the unifying intent of the said bull.[7] The omission of this in the briefing document is seriously misleading and renders its assertion false.
It ignores the reality that in the history of the Western Church, before and after Trent, various rites, legitimate in the richness of their diversity, have been celebrated (Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Lyons, Braga, Carthusian, Dominican, Cistercian, Carmelite, etc.). The Fathers of Trent were perfectly aware of this, as was Pius V (himself a Dominican).
It ignores the reality that the Tridentine liturgical reform took until the second half of the nineteenth century to be accepted in France and it may well never have been had the Revolution not taken place.[8]Even then, many local ceremonial usages were retained regardless.
This article seeks to lay an historical foundation for the false assertion that ecclesial unity requires liturgical uniformity—an utterly historically and theologically embarrassing and unfortunate assumption behind key liturgical initiatives in the previous pontificate. Without mentioning the great liturgical riches of the Eastern Catholic Churches, the history of the Western liturgy alone clearly bears out its falsehood. It is more than unfortunate—indeed, it is inexcusable—that such a blatant error should appear in a document such as this.
Article 3. The need to reform the Liturgy is strictly tied to the ritual component, through which – per ritus et preces (SC 48) – we participate in the paschal mystery: the rite is in itself characterised by cultural elements that change in time and places.
Let us look at what Sacrosanctum Concilium says in article 48:
The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by God’s word and be nourished at the table of the Lord’s body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the Mediator they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may be all in all.
This article of the Constitution is calling for a “good understanding” of the rites and prayers in order to facilitate participatio actuosa in the liturgy and does not in any sense require liturgical change or reform. It is calling for liturgical formation to facilitate liturgical renewal. It is not authorising the ongoing reform of the liturgical rites themselves, even as it is certainly possible that changing times and places may prompt development that is proportionate and organic (new saints, particular needs, etc.).
Put another way, the “rites and prayers” are not the primary focus here.[9] Fruitful participation in them is the intended end and formation is the means proposed to achieve it—not a constant reforming of rites according to “cultural elements that change in time and places.” This suggests that the Sacred Liturgy is in a constant state of change—something which is utterly foreign to Catholic liturgical tradition and history (such subjectivity is, however, common enough in protestant communities).
Thus, it is at best disingenuous to assert that there is a pre-existent “need to reform the liturgy” arising from its ritual nature. Rather, as the Council asserted, there is an ongoing need to renew our fruitful participation in it “through a good understanding of the [given] rites and prayers.”
Article 4. Besides, since “Tradition is not the transmission of things or words, a collection of dead things» but «the living river that links us to the origins, the living river in which the origins are ever present” (BENEDICT XVI General Audience, 26 April 2006), we can certainly affirm that the reform of the Liturgy wanted by the Second Vatican Council is not only in full syntony with the true meaning of Tradition, but constitutes a singular way of putting itself at the service of the Tradition, because the latter is like a great river that leads us to the gates of eternity. (ibid.).
It is astonishing that the only citation of Pope Benedict XVI in this document—a pope who spoke, taught and legislated intelligently and intentionally in respect of the Sacred Liturgy and of the ‘issue’ of liturgical reform—comes from a General Audience address which, if one reads it, does not directly concern itself with the Sacred Liturgy or address the question of liturgical reform.[10] The Audience in fact addresses the theology of Communion in time, synchronically and diachronically. One is left wondering why, then, the analogy used by Benedict XVI is used here when so much else of what he said and wrote could be more clearly applied?
The reference to “a collection of dead things”, which, given the context of the Consistory, may presumably be inferred as speaking about the usus antiquior of the Roman rite, is nothing other than a “cheap shot” on the part of the author. Benedict XVI himself insisted that:
“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”[11]
That the reform of the liturgy wanted by the Second Vatican Council is in full syntony with the true meaning of Tradition is not in question. However, that the liturgical rites produced after the Council are what the Council intended most certainly is in question. Serious scholarship is perfectly clear that this is not the case. To fail to make this distinction, whilst convenient in terms of avoiding its implications, and perhaps psychologically comforting for some, is academically embarrassing.[12]
Given this, if the author intends to claim that the liturgical rites produced following the Council constitute “a singular way of putting itself at the service of the Tradition, because the latter is like a great river that leads us to the gates of eternity” he is engaging in little more than fanciful hyperbole, and his words should be set aside as just that.
In respect of liturgical tradition, it is apposite to recall the teaching of the most liturgically aware of recent popes, who stated clearly and succinctly that: “In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.”[13] If the rites produced following the Second Vatican Council represent a rupture with liturgical tradition in whole or in part, this is an ecclesial problem that requires urgent and careful redress. If the river of living Tradition has been somehow blocked or diverted we must reconnect with its life-giving source. The theological and pastoral implications are enormous. To obfuscate in respect of this question will only make the matter worse.
Article 5. In this dynamic vision, “maintaining solid tradition” and “opening the way to legitimate progress» (SC 23) cannot be understood as two separable actions: without a “legitimate progress” the tradition would be reduced to a “collection of dead things” not always all healthy; without the “sound tradition» progress risks becoming a pathological search for novelty, that cannot generate life, like a river whose path is blocked separating it from its sources.
By dividing the two phrases of Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 23 thus the author invents two straw men here: one he labels “a ‘collection of dead things’ not always all healthy” and the other he decries as being “without the ‘sound tradition’” which he calls “progress” and which risks devolving into “a pathological search for novelty, that cannot generate life”.
We have dealt with the slur implied in the reference to a “collection of dead things” above, though the additional denigration of not always being healthy should be noted here. This is not intellectual argumentation but ideological propaganda and should be discarded as such.
In respect to the second straw man, it can be observed that certainly in the first decades following the Council this was a very real phenomenon based on a gross misunderstanding of what is truly “pastoral liturgy” and, if we are to believe what is sometimes portrayed on social media, that it is has not been entirely eradicated even as it is today, thankfully, all the more rare.[14]
Apart from the somewhat cheap indictment of those who worship according to the usus antiquior, the juxtaposition of these straw men serves simply to seek to assert that the liturgy is in need of constant reform, whereas, whilst the Sacred Liturgy certainly develops and progresses, it is man who is in need of constant reform—indeed, of formation—so as to drink ever more deeply of the riches of the treasures of liturgical tradition. We should look to reform and form ourselves and our people first and foremost: tinkering with the liturgy is not the place to begin.
To speak constantly of the liturgy being “dynamic” and “progressing” and “changing” is to risk turning it into a form of religious entertainment for people who, without the necessary formation with which to unlock its riches, will become bored and constantly seek something new, more dynamic and different if we are somehow to retain their attention.
Here the question of the theology of Catholic liturgy arises, at least implicitly—something this briefing document does not make explicit. The liturgy is the manner in which we, as God’s creatures, render to Almighty God the worship that is His due. This reality is often ignored today. So too, it is very often forgotten that Catholic liturgy is not fundamentally about what we do, but about what Our Lord Jesus Christ does for us and in us. The Second Vatican Council teaches that:
The liturgy is considered as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy the sanctification of the man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs; in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.
From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others; no other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree.
Pius XII taught that the liturgy is nothing less than “the public worship which our Redeemer as Head of the Church renders to the Father, as well as the worship which the community of the faithful renders to its Founder, and through Him to the heavenly Father.”[15]
Cardinal Ratzinger underlined the matter succinctly:
If the liturgy appears first of all as the workshop for our activity, then what is essential is being forgotten: God. For the Liturgy is not about us, but about God. Forgetting about God is the most imminent danger of our age. As against this, the liturgy should be setting up a sign of God’s presence. Yet what happens if the habit of forgetting about God makes itself at home in the liturgy itself and if in the liturgy we are thinking only of ourselves? In any and every liturgical reform, and in every liturgical celebration, the primacy of God should be kept in view first and foremost.[16]
Hence, whilst the Sacred Liturgy is living and capable of organic development (liturgical tradition is ‘persuadable,’ as it were, by new needs and circumstances), Catholic worship remains in essence the Church’s objective worship rendered to Almighty God. It cannot be instrumentalised or turned into a catechetical tool or be subjected to the passing whims of any generation or group of enthusiasts, without doing violence to its very nature. Protestant worship does this, but its worship is intentionally subjective. For Catholics, however, “the liturgy is a living network of tradition that [has] taken concrete form, that cannot be torn apart into little pieces but that has to be seen and experienced as a living whole.”[17]
Article 6. In the discourse to the participants in the Plenary of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (8 February 2024), Pope Francis expressed himself thus: «Sixty years on from the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the words we read in its introduction, with which the Fathers declared the Council’s purpose, do not cease to enthuse. They are objectives that describe a precise desire to reform the Church in her fundamental dimensions: to make the Christian life of the faithful grow more and more every day; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to reinvigorate that which serves to call all to the bosom of the Church (cf. SC 1). It is a task of spiritual, pastoral, ecumenical, and missionary renewal. And in order accomplish it, the Council Fathers knew where they had to begin, they knew there were particularıy cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy» (Ibid.). It is like saying: without liturgical reform, there is no reform of the Church. »
With the respect that is due for the person of the pope cited in this article, and for his office, it remains true that not every utterance or judgement of every successor of St Peter is true or accurate.[18] Hence, we may respectfully reject the assertion that “without liturgical reform, there is no reform of the Church.”
This assertion, presumably drafted by one seeking to justify an ideological reverence for the rites produced following Vatican II, is simply not borne out in history. Many popes and councils have initiated reforms that have not of themselves required a concomitant liturgical reform of any significance. As asserted above, even the great reforming Council of Trent respected the received liturgical tradition with great reverence, seeking to protect it, not to remake it according to the tastes of the times.
The use of the word “reform” in this address is itself problematic (in the same sense as discussed above) in that it implies that the intent of the Council was directly to remake or drastically change the Sacred Liturgy, as distinct from renewing its fruitfulness through the fostering of participatio actuosa.
Ecclesia semper reformanda does not imply liturgia semper reformanda. The former refers to the need of reform in the people who are part of the Church and in her human institutions, not to her living Tradition, of which the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that the Sacred Liturgy is a “constituent element”.[19]
Article 7. The liturgical Reform was elaborated on the basis of «accurate theological, historical and pastoral investigation» (SC 23). Its scope was to render more full the participation in the celebration of the Paschal Mystery for a renewal of the Church, the People of God, the Mystical Body of Christ (see LG chapters I-II), perfecting the faithful in unity with God and among themselves (cf. SC 48). Only from the salvific experience of the celebration of Easter, the Church rediscovers and relaunches the missionary mandate of the Risen Lord (cf. Mt 28, 19-20) and becomes in a world torn by discord, a leaven of unity.
This article is embarrassing in the extreme. Whilst much of the “theological, historical and pastoral investigation” that contributed to the liturgical movement was sound and served the moderate pastoral ends of that movement to the considerable good of the Church, the reform following the Council was marked by political infighting and a consequent sense of urgent opportunism on the part of those responsible, as the published works of the principal protagonists of the reform make clear.[20]
So too, liturgical scholarship has moved on since the mid-twentieth century, revealing some of the assumptions made by the reformers to be false.[21] That this is the case with the so-called “Anaphora of Hippolytus” enthusiastically championed amongst others by Dom Bernard Botte (a peritus of the post-conciliar Consilium) as the earliest Roman anaphora and which, on that basis, yet in a severely edited form, has appeared in the Roman Missal as “Eucharistic Prayer II” is the preeminent travesty of postconciliar liturgical history.[22] That this Eucharistic Prayer is the one by far the most frequently used in the usus recentior of the Roman rite today underlines the severity of the issue: it is not an ancient Roman anaphora happily ‘restored’ to life and use, but the construct of faulty mid-twentieth century scholarship theologically edited according to the zeitgeist of the mid 1960s and imposed on the Church in spite of the fact that the Second Vatican Council itself never called for, or even envisaged the possibility of, the substantial innovation of additional Eucharistic Prayers in the Roman rite.[23] One may legitimately ask, with Sacrosanctum Concilium 23, whether “the good of the Church genuinely and certainly” required this?
The same question may be asked of the reform of the proper prayers of the missal which has been clearly and painstakingly shown by recent scholarship as operating from a fundamentally different approach, if not theology, to that of their predecessors:
…the collects…do not approach God in the same way, seek the same things from Him, present the same picture of the human situation, and so forth. The 1962 collects are more attentive to the interior person than are those of the post-Vatican II missals and, perhaps, more subtle in the way they draw their content from the mysteries being celebrated. In contrast, the Vatican II proper season collects are more explicit in the mention of feasts and the joy they occasion, less attentive to the inner aspects of spiritual transformation in Christ, and more likely to ask for the final attainment of heaven than for specific kinds of help along the way.
That there are significant changes in the theological and/or spiritual emphases of the collects of given seasons is clear.[24]
Further study is required in this area, also in respect of the Lectionary, but one searches in vain the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy for a license to edit the prayers or scriptural readings of the missal theologically or ideologically. Calls for renewal or expansion made by the Constitution,[25] and for “accurate theological, historical and pastoral investigation” into the rites, most certainly did not envisage the evisceration of central teachings of Sacred Scripture.[26]
Far from “perfecting the faithful in unity with God and among themselves,” we have to admit two realities about the liturgical reform following the Second Vatican Council. Firstly, it has failed to usher in the new springtime in the life of the Church with which it was ‘marketed.’[27] The fact is that in the West most baptised Catholics simply do not come to Mass—due to various causes, certainly, but the reformed liturgy has not proved to be a successful antidote to them. It does not serve to unite them to God.
Secondly, the reformed liturgy, since its promulgation, has proved to be a source of ongoing bitter division amongst the faithful, even occasioning schismatic acts. The relatively recent papal repudiation of the serious and not unsuccessful initiatives of Benedict XVI to heal these wounds and to arrive at a working pax liturgicahas only served to increase the bitterness and division. This is a pastoral issue of great urgency that, in justice to both God and man, requires redress.
Article 8. We ought to also recognize that the application of the Reform suffered and continues to suffer from a lack of formation, and this urgency of addressing, beginning with Seminars to «bring to life the kind of formation of the faithful and ministry of pastors that will have their summit and source in the liturgy (Instruction Inter œcumenici, 26 September 1964, 5)
Let us look at Sacrosanctum Concilium article 14:
Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.
In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and actual participation by all the people is to be given the greatest attention; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit;[28] and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.
Yet it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy…
The third paragraph is emphasised given the focus of this article of the document. What is not often understood is that Vatican II itself foresaw that all that it wished to promote would be nothing less than “futile” if the clergy themselves were not “thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy.”
This article of the briefing document speaks of the reform suffering from a lack of formation. It must be said plainly that this, whilst true, is a gross understatement of the reality. Can we truly say that the clergy today are “thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy”—which is the Council’s own pre-condition for the renewed participation in the Sacred Liturgy that it so earnestly sought for the good of souls?
This issue has been studied at length.[29] In summary, it needs to be noted that the spirit and power of the liturgy is something that is apprehended through experience rather than merely through study. It is something ‘caught, not taught’, as it were, by living the liturgy and living from the liturgy. Immersion in the liturgical life of the Church will enable instruction to bear much more fruit than will simply being lectured about it at seminars. This is why pontifical documents on the formation of clergy so often insist on optimal liturgical celebrations in the life of the seminary.[30]
Hence, the proposal of “seminars” as a remedy to the lack of formation in the six decades since the Council rings hollow. In all likelihood, those who would attend such gatherings already have something of a taste for the spirit of the liturgy: it could be an exercise in preaching to the converted, as it were.
Organising seminars may appease us by allowing us to think that we are doing something, but what is necessary is not a costly programme of lectures, but a renewal of the liturgical life of the Church along the lines generally delineated in the 2007 Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis, and most particularly in its explanation of the ars celebrandi (nn. 38-43). The implementation of this vision would foster true liturgical formation, just as did the “mutual enrichment” between the usus antiquior and the usus recentior promoted by Benedict XVI in the wake of Summorum Pontificum (2007), as priests and bishops who have (re-)discovered the beauty of the optimal celebration of the older rites can themselves attest. The fostering of reverence and devotion is more powerfully formative than addressing words to people, for when such receptivity becomes part of our natural liturgical disposition the Sacred Liturgy itself can speak to the heart, mind and soul and impart its riches more fully.
Article 9. The primary good of the unity of the Church is not achieved by freezing division but by finding ourselves in the sharing of what cannot but be shared, as Pope Francis said in Desiderio desideravi 61: «We are called continually to rediscover the richness of the general principles exposed in the first numbers of Sacrosanctum Concilium, grasping the intimate bond between this first of the Council’s constitutions and all the others. For this reason we cannot go back to that ritual form which the Council fathers, cum Petro et sub Petro, felt the need to reform, approving, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and following their conscience as pastors, the principles from which was born the reform. The holy pontiffs St. Paul VI and St. John Paul II, approving the reformed liturgical books ex decreto Sacrosancti Ecumenici Concilii Vaticani II, have guaranteed the fidelity of the reform of the Council. For this reason I wrote Traditionis custodes, so that the Church may lift up, in the variety of so many languages, one and the same prayer capable of expressing her unity. [Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969) in AAS 61 (1969) 222]. As I have already written, I intend that this unity be re-established in the whole Church of the Roman Rite.»
Articles 9-11 of this briefing document reveal its preoccupation with preventing further permissions for celebrations of the usus antiquior of the Roman rite. This negative motivation is telling and, if truth is to be told, is more political than pastoral in its intent: it does not seek the good of souls today; rather it seeks to protect at all costs the cherished liturgical ideologies of yesterday that are the subject of increasing, ongoing scholarly and pastoral critiques.
Hence the use of the extraordinary phrase “freezing division” in juxtaposition with the unity of the Church. As has been asserted above and as is borne out by liturgical history, uniformity in ritual celebration is not the sine qua non of ecclesial unity. So too, those who find that the older liturgical rites have real pastoral value today—faithful cardinals, bishops and priests (as well as many young people)[31] amongst them—are not thereby sewing division in the Church. They are legitimately drawing from “the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer,”[32] as scribes who have been trained for the kingdom of heaven, like householders who bring out of their treasure what is new and what is old in due season (see: Mt 13:52).
As stated above, not every opinion or judgement of a pope is infallible and, once again with all the respect that is due to the person and office of the pope concerned, the opinions quoted in article 9 fall into this category.
We pray for the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and rightly. But we cannot thereby automatically ascribe prudential judgements of popes and other ecclesiastics to His inspiration. This is also the case both with papal elections (as history shows only too well) and the prudential decisions of Ecumenical Councils. We hope and pray and work for the good, but it is not thereby automatically divinely assured. Hence, the liturgical renewal willed by the Council was a matter of prudential judgement. They are not articles of faith solemnly so defined. Some of those judgements—such as its fundamental call for widespread participatio actuosa—are timely and utterly sound. Others may need to be revised today, sixty years later, in the light of further considerations or changed circumstances. Others still may need to be revisited because their wisdom and moderation have long since been left behind.
The appeal to conscience is similarly disingenuous. We hope and we should presume that the Fathers of the Council acted in good conscience, but that in itself does not assure the wisdom of their prudential judgements. Wisdom requires more than simply good conscience, as does prudence. A similar observation can be made in respect of those who produced the reformed rites after the Council.
“The reform” is used as a wide umbrella in the document cited. The distinction between the principles laid down by the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and the rites as produced after the Council has been underlined above. The failure of the document cited to acknowledge this, and the exclusion of this reality from any discussion in the briefing document under examination, is a grave omission. To assert that authority has “guaranteed the fidelity of the reform of the Council” in the face of evidence to the contrary is, once again, disingenuous.
The ritual unity that the author of the document cited states that he intended to re-establish is a fallacy: it never existed in the ritual manner to which he aspires. Unity in the one true faith in rich ritual diversity is the hallmark of Catholic worship, not ritual uniformity. The celebration of the usus antiquior in no way prejudices the unity of the Church; indeed, it seeks to foster it.[33]
It is also a pastoral reality that some generations of Catholics now exist who have never been part of that so-called ritual unity, in that they have been born into, formed in the faith, and have in their turn married or been ordained or professed in communities that celebrate the usus antiquior. This is a pastoral reality that cannot be ignored. The Church cannot bless and approve their Christian life and worship under John Paul II and Benedict XVI and withdraw this and then frog-march them and their children into an alien environment under another pope. Their Christian life and worship must be respected in its integrity. To fail to do so would be to scandalise these faithful, clergy and religious in the true sense of that word.
The adage (seemingly wrongly attributed to St Augustine) In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas, may prove helpful here. To put it more clearly, the liturgical rites in the forms they were promulgated following the Second Vatican Council are not of themselves necessary for salvation, even as the faith and sacraments that they (and that other Catholic rites) celebrate are.
Article 10. The use of liturgical books that the Council sought to reform was, from St. John Paul II to Francis, a concession that in no way envisaged their promotion. Pope Francis-while granting, in accordance with Traditionis Custodes, the use of the 1962 Missale Romanum-pointed the way to unity in the use of the liturgical books promulgated by the holy Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, in accordance with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, the sole expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.
It is significant that this briefing document makes no mention of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum or to the Letter to the Bishops that accompanied it. The latter makes the mens legislatoris perfectly clear:
I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!” (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.
There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.[34]
This is not a “concession” but the pastorally motivated authoritative giving of their “proper place” to the “riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer,” which, as noted above, even young people have found to be “a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them.” To say that this pope, who most certainly reigned between John Paul II and Francis, did not envisage that the usus antiquior would grow or be promoted is, again, at best disingenuous. He made it freely available so that it could enrich the life of the Church, and indeed even enrich the usus recentior.[35]
To assert that John Paul II, who spoke of the “rightful aspirations” of the faithful attached to the usus antiquior, and in whose pontificate, amongst other communities (erected or regularised) the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter was erected (for the celebration and promotion of the older rites) regarded this as purely a concession is similarly disingenuous.[36]
The expression “the sole expression of the lex orandi of the Roman rite” in respect of the liturgical books of the usus recentior is unfortunate at best (if that is possible) and utterly incomprehensible at worst. Once again this completely ignores the historical variants of the Roman rite found in major Sees and religious orders and which persist to this day in reformed versions at least in the Ambrosian and Carthusian rites, not to mention the relatively recently approved Ordinariate use. This expression should be quietly retired from liturgical parlance.
Article 11. Pope Francis summarised the issue as follows (Desiderio desideravi 31): » […] If the liturgy is ‘the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed, and at the same time the font from which all her power flows, (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 10), well then, we can understand what is at stake in the liturgical question. It would be trivial to read the tensions, unfortunately present around the celebration, as a simple divergence between different tastes concerning a particular ritual form. The problematic is primarily ecclesiological. I do not see how it is possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the Council though it amazes me that a Catholic might presume not to do so and at the same time not accept the liturgical reform born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium, a document that expresses the reality of the Liturgy intimately joined to the vision of Church so admirably described in Lumen gentium. […]».
In this article we come to the crux of the misunderstanding in respect of the usus antiquior, and indeed perhaps of the nature of the Second Vatican Council itself, and of the liturgical reform produced following it in particular.
First and foremost, it must be said that the desire to celebrate and worship according to the usus antiquior is certainly not primarily a matter of aesthetics, nor of a deficient ecclesiology, but of principle—indeed, the fundamental principle of the centrality of participatio actuosa for Christian life laid down by Sacrosanctum Concilium 14. The adherents of the usus antiquior judge that the usus recentior, either in its official form, its various vernacular translations, or in the manner it is celebrated and adapted locally, is often deficient because it is not a development in continuity with the millennial liturgical tradition of the Church, but a rupture of it. So too, they find the usus antiquior to be richer in symbol, doctrine and spirituality, that its optimal celebration forms them and their children naturally and well, and aids them in persevering faithfully and fruitfully in their Christian life and mission. In short, they find it to be more sound in respect of the Church’s living tradition and more pastorally efficacious in ways that the usus recentior can all-too-often lack. So too, they find these rites to be a manner of worshipping Almighty God that is more worthy of Him and of the worship that is His due.
Secondly, no sane person can or would fail to recognise the “validity” of the Second Vatican Council as an Ecumenical Council of the Church. Neither could one dispute the authority of any binding definition of faith or morals that it made. But it made none. It was a pastoral Council and envisaged as such from the outset. Its prudential decisions (its policies) may or may not have been wise and the People of God (including clergy and religious) have legitimate freedom of expression and judgement in respect of these. To elevate prudential decisions into supposed dogmas of the faith is a grave abuse of authority. We must not fall into this trap in respect of the rites produced following the Council (rites which, as has been demonstrated, often enough ignore the Constitution’s own stipulations).
To assert that “the liturgical reform” as we have it “was born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium” is again, highly disingenuous. Even proponents of the reform agree that the Constitution was left behind by those who produced the rites promulgated in the Council’s name.[37]
The addition of and appeal to “the vision of Church so admirably described in Lumen Gentium” is historically problematic. Whilst both Constitutions were considered at the same (first two) sessions of the Council, there is little evidence in the debate on the Sacred Liturgy, or indeed of the workings of the Conciliar Liturgical Commission, of a conscious desire that the liturgy should reflect such a vision—which of course was not promulgated until 21 November 1964, nearly a year after the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. This seems to be something of an a posteriori reading of history.
II. Further Considerations
The Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy stated clearly that “In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and actual participation by all the people is to be given the greatest attention; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit” (n. 14). In considering how to move forward, this should be our goal regardless of where (if anywhere at all) we stand in respect of what has colloquially become known as “the liturgy wars”.
That is to say that we should do all that we can to ensure that the usus recentior is fit for this purpose—in its editiones typicae, in its approved vernacular translations, in authorised adaptations and in its local celebration. This is no small task, and in some case the ‘horse may already have bolted’, as it were. But Sacramentum Caritatis does give us at least some practical ways to begin to try.
So too we should recognise the reality that the full participatio actuosa that the Council sought can be, and quite often is, a reality in contemporary celebrations of the usus antiquior, as its attraction to the young, to families and its singular fruitfulness in respect of committed lay Catholics and in fostering vocations attest, and as many bishops have themselves discovered when visiting such communities.
This is a reality we cannot ignore. In this respect it may be that the words of the Angel in Revelation 3 are addressed to us today: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” (v. 6) Indeed, we may well need to heed the advice of Gameliel: “…let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!”(Acts 5;38-39)
Hence any maintenance of the restrictions imposed on the celebration of the various rites of the usus antiquior in 2021—for dubious, if not overtly political reasons, and seemingly in flagrant disregard of the will of the world’s bishops[38]—would be clearly contrary to the good of souls at the present time, and would in fact risk “freezing division”.
“Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.”[39]
III. General observations
In the end it must be said clearly that this briefing document lacks intellectual honesty and displays a woeful ignorance of liturgical history. Similarly, it lacks the pastoral outreach and generosity one would expect to find, replacing it with a rigidity that clings to a very narrow vision of the Church’s liturgical life and history.
That this document bears the name of the Prefect of the Dicastery of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments renders it nothing less than a scandal. If it is the work of the Prefect himself, he should ‘consider his position,’ as politicians in his native country would say. If it is the work of his staff, he should consider their positions also, whilst himself accepting ultimate responsibility for having distributed it to members of the Sacred College.
For this document is certainly not a profound theological, historical, and pastoral inquiry with the aim that sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress. It is little more than a piece of shallow propaganda and should be set aside as such. The College of Cardinals, indeed the Church—most especially her faithful—deserve far better.
-----------------------------------------------------
Dom Alcuin is the founding Prior of the Monastère Saint-Benoît in Brignoles, France, www.monasterebrignoles.org —a monastery of classical Benedictine observance.
After studies in Theology and Education in Melbourne, Australia, Dom Alcuin was awarded a PhD from King’s College, University of London, for a thesis on twentieth century liturgical reform (2002), which was subsequently published as The Organic Development of the Liturgy with a preface by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Ignatius, 2005). He has lectured internationally and has published extensively on the Sacred Liturgy, including Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger (2003), The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described (2009), Sacred Liturgy: The Source and Summit of the Life and Mission of the Church (2014), T&T Clark Companion to Liturgy (2016) & Liturgy in the Twenty-First Century: Contemporary Issues and Perspectives (2016). His writings have been translated into Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Polish and Lithuanian. He served as theInternational Coordinator of the Sacra Liturgia initiatives, including the international conferences in Rome 2013, New York 2015, London 2016 and Milan 2017.
[1] I gratefully acknowledge the contributions of my confreres, in particular that of Dom Gérald (Pierre) Guérin, himself a doctoral student in liturgical history at the Université Bordeaux Montaigne.
[2] For example, the role of the popes in the sixth and seventh centuries in respect of the retention or inclusion of the Kyrie eleison, the Pater noster and Agnus Dei in the Roman Mass.
[3] The substantial reordering of the truly ancient psalter of the Roman Breviary in the 1911 reform of Pope Pius X may be said to have been the herald of ultramontane liturgical reform in the Roman rite. See: Honoré Vinck, Pie X et les réformes liturgiques de 1911-1914 : psautier, bréviare, calendrier, rubriques, Aschendorff Verlag, Münster 2014.
[4] The famous Roman “supplement” to the existing Frankish rites was not a supplantation of them but a proposed addition or enrichment, which took root in the rite naturally and over time. Medieval missals at times give choices for certain blessings, etc., between the older local use and the newer Roman text. See: Alcuin Reid, The Organic Development of the Liturgy: The Principles of Liturgical Reform and Their Relation to the Twentieth-Century Liturgical Movement Prior to the Second Vatican Council, 2nd ed., Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2005, pp.22-27. Italian translation: Lo sviluppo orgnico della liturgia: I principi della riforma liturgica e il loro rapport con il Movimento liturgico del XX secolo prima del Concilio Vaticano II, ed. Cantagalli, Siena 2013, pp. 17-23. See also: Uwe Michael Lang, The Roman Mass: From Early Christian Origins to Tridentine Reform, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2022, pp. 214-254.
[5] See: ibid., pp.39-44; Lo sviluppo orgnico della liturgia, pp. 34-39. See also: Lang, The Roman Mass, pp. 343-367. The contemporary repudiation of the innovation of the Breviary of Cardinal Quignonez is also instructive (ibid., pp. 34-39; Lo sviluppo orgnico della liturgia, pp. 30-34.)
[6] See further my historical analysis of this article of the Constitution: “Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Organic Development of the Liturgy” in: U.M. Lang (ed.) The Genius of the Roman Rite: Historical, Theological and Pastoral Perspectives on Catholic Liturgy, Hillenbrand Books, Chicago 2010, pp. 198-215.
[7] “This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom.” See: M. Sodi & A.M. Triacca, eds, Missale Romanum Editio Princeps (1570), Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 1998, pp. 3-4.
[8] In the absence of a King, to whom the French Church had hitherto turned for authority, and in the wake of varying secular regimes, a greater turning toward the Holy See as a source of authority was a natural development.
[9] To interpret “sed per ritus et preces id bene intellegentes” as meaning that we participate primarily through the rites, rather than primarily through our perception/understanding/internalisation of them, is to utterly misread the Constitution.
[10] One might also observe that a General Audience address is not particularly high in the ranking of Magisterial documents, whatever the merits of the content of the text itself.
[11] Letter to the Bishops, 7 July 2007.
[12] See: Alcuin Reid, “After Sacrosanctum Concilium—Continuity or Rupture?” in: A. Reid, ed., T&T Clark Companion to Liturgy, Bloomsbury Publishing, London 2016, pp. 297-316; Thomas Kocik, “A Reform of the Reform?”, ibid., pp. 316-338. These two articles give a summary of the issues and of the relevant literature. It is noteworthy that even liturgists such as the late Anscar Chupungco do not contest that “the reform went beyond the letter of the Constitution” (ibid., p. 294), appealing rather to its indefinable “spirit” to justify the rupture.
[13] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops, 7 July 2007.
[14] See: Alcuin Reid, “Pastoral Liturgy Revisited” in: T&T Clark Companion to Liturgy, pp. 341-363.
[15] Mediator Dei, 20 November 1947, n. 20.
[16] Preface to Reid, The Organic Development of the Liturgy, p. 13; Lo sviluppo orgnico della liturgia, p. 9.
[17] Ibid., p. 11; Lo sviluppo orgnico della liturgia, p. 7. Cardinal Ratzinger continues: “Anyone who, like me, was moved by this perception at the time of the Liturgical Movement on the eve of the Second Vatican Council can only stand, deeply sorrowing, before the ruins of the very things they were concerned for.”
[18] The most astounding recent instance of this—curiously not referenced in this document—was the statement of the previous pope that: “We can affirm with certainty and with magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.” Address to Participants in the 68th National Liturgical Week in Italy, 24 August 2017. Quite how such an opinion, or judgement can have “magisterial” authority escapes the present author. It can certainly be an authoritative judgement of the Supreme Pontiff in respect of his munus to govern, but it remains a prudential judgement, not a matter of the teaching of the Church. One may be a Catholic in good standing and hold a different view. The bull—which carries more canonical weight than an address—Quo Primum (1570) Pius V contains statements that can be read as prohibiting any alteration of that rite forever. Subsequent popes have not considered themselves bound by such strictures, just as popes today and in the future (and indeed, neither the clergy or laity) are bound by the opinion expressed in the former pope’s August 2017 address.
[19] “Liturgy is a constituent element of the holy and living Tradition,” n. 1124. It is important to note the implication of this drawn out by the subsequent article of the Catechism: “Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy,” n. 1125.
[20] See: Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, Liturgical Press, Collegeville 1990; Piero Marini, A Challenging Reform: Realising the Vision of the Liturgical Renewal, Liturgical Press, Collegeville 2007.
[21] See: Matthew Hazell, “‘Expert Consensus’ in the Post-Vatican II Liturgical Reforms: More Half-Truths and Dated Scholarship,” New Liturgical Movement, 24 August 2024: https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2024/08/expert-consensus-in-post-vatican-ii.html
[22] See: Paul F. Bradshaw, Maxwell E. Johnson and L. Edward Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary, Fortress Press, Minneapolis 2002; Matthieu Smyth, « L’anaphore de la prétendue “Tradition apostolique” et la prière eucharistique romaine », Revue des Sciences Religieuses, 81, 2007, p. 95-118 ; ET: “The Anaphora of the So-called Apostolic Tradition and the Roman Eucharistic Prayer”, Usus Antiquior 1 n.1, 2010, pp. 5-25; John F. Baldovin, S.J., “Hippolytus and the Apostolic Tradition: Recent Research and Commentary”, Theological Studies 64 n.3 (2003), pp. 520-542.
[23] This unprecedented reform was the result of the personal initiative of Dom Cyprian Vagaggini and other enthusiasts. See: Cypriano Vagaggini, The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform, Geoffrey Chapman, London 1967. Italian original: Il canone della messa e la riforma liturgia, Elle Di Ci, Torino-Leumann 1966.
[24] Lauren Pristas, The Collects of the Roman Missals: A Comparative Study of the Sundays in Proper Seasons before and after the Second Vatican Council, Bloomsbury, London 2013; pp. 227-228. See also: Lauren Pristas, “The Post-Vatican II Revision of Collects: Solemnities and Feasts,” in: Alcuin Reid, ed., Liturgy in the Twenty-First Century: Contemporary Issues and Perspectives, Bloomsbury, London 2016, pp. 51-90.
[25] Which, given the precedents in the Parisian and Ambrosian missals, pose little difficulty.
[26] The omission of St Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor. 11:27-29 (“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”) from the revised Lectionary is perhaps the most shocking. See: Matthew Hazell, “The Omission of 1 Corinthians 11, 27-29 from the Ordinary Form Lectionary: What We Know, and a Hypothesis,” New Liturgical Movement, 26 June 2021: https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2021/06/the-omission-of-1-corinthians-11-27-29.html.
[27] In particular, see Pope Paul VI’s General Audience addresses of 19 & 26 November 1969.
[28] The translation of “actuosa participatio…summopere attendenda est” given here conforms with the Latin original and also with the Italian, French, German and Spanish translations given on the Vatican website.
[29] Alcuin Reid, “’Thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the Liturgy’—Sacrosanctum Concilium and Liturgical Formation,” in: Alcuin Reid, ed., Sacred Liturgy: The Source and Summit of the Life and Mission of the Church, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2014, pp. 213-236. Italian translation: “Spiritu et virtute Liturgiae penitus imbuantur—Sacrosanctum Concilium e formazione liturgica” in: A. Reid, La Sacra Liturgia: Fonte e culmine della vita e della missione della Chiesa, Ed. Cantagalli, Siena 2014, pp. 181-201.
[30] See: Sacrosanctum Concilium, 17. Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, Instruction on Liturgical Formation in Seminaries, 3 June 1979: “The great importance which the sacred liturgy occupies in the life of the Church demands that the contemporary candidate for the priesthood be given a proper formation both in the area of correct practice and in assiduous study, so that he will be most able to carry out his pastoral ministry in this field.” (Introduction). “All genuine liturgical formation involves not only doctrine but also practice. This practice, as a “mystagogical” formation, is obtained first and mainly through the very liturgical life of the students into which they are daily more deeply initiated through liturgical actions celebrated in common. This careful and practical initiation is the foundation of all further liturgical study, and it is presupposed that this has already been acquired when liturgical questions are explained” (n. 2).
[31] Pope Benedict XVI observed: “It has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them.” Letter to the Bishops, 7 July 2007.
[32] Ibid.
[33] In his 2007 letter to the Bishops accompanying Summorum Pontificum Pope Benedict XVI made this intention utterly explicit as the citation form that letter in the commentary on article 10 makes clear.
[34] Letter to the Bishops, 7 July 2007. Emphasis added.
[35] Benedict XVI discussed his intentions in an interview three years after his retirement (five years before Traditiones Custodes): “I have always said, and even still say, that it was important that something which was previously the most sacred thing in the Church to people should not suddenly be completely forbidden. A society that now considers to be forbidden what it once perceived to be the central core—that cannot be. The inner identity it has with the other must remain visible. So for me it [Summorum Pontificum] was not about tactical matters and God knows what, but about the inward reconciliation of the Church with itself.” The reauthorisation of the Tridentine Mass is often interpreted primarily as a concession to the Society of St Pius X. “That is absolutely false! It was important for me that the Church is one with herself inwardly, with her own past; what was previously holy to her is not somehow wrong now. The rite must develop. In that sense reform is appropriate. But the continuity must not be ruptured. The Society of St Pius X is based on the fact that people felt that the Church was renouncing itself. That must not be. But as I said, my intentions were not of a tactical nature, they were about the substance of the matter itself.” Last Testament in his own words, Bloomsbury, London 2016, pp. 201-202.
[36] Bull, Ecclesia Dei adflicta, 2 July 1988, 5 c: “To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church.”
[37] We have noted Anscar Chupungco’s observation above (see note 12). Archbishop Bugnini himself would boast in his memoirs that “fortune favours the brave;” The Reform of the Liturgy, p. 11; and—with masterful understatement—that “it cannot be denied that the principle, approved by the Council, of using the vernaculars was given a broad interpretation;” ibid., p. 110. The Council Fathers themselves, in the light of concerns about the reform expressed in the Conciliar debate, were given the assurance before voting that: “Hodiernus Ordo Missæ, qui decursu saeculorum succrevit, certe retinendus est.” (“The current Ordo Missæ, which has grown up in the course of the centuries, certainly is to be retained”); see: Alcuin Reid, “On the Council Floor: The Council Fathers’ Debate on the Schema on the Sacred Liturgy” in: U.M. Lang (ed), Authentic Liturgical Renewal in Contemporary Perspective, Bloomsbury, London 2017, pp. 125-143 (see pp. 126-127). Yet, as Father Joseph Gellineau was later able to assert, the Order of Mass promulgated by Paul VI “in fact it is a different liturgy of the Mass. We must say it plainly: the Roman rite as we knew it exists no longer. It is destroyed (détruit). Some walls of the structure have fallen, others have been altered; we can look at it as a ruin or the partial foundation of a new building;” Joseph Gelineau SJ, The Liturgy Today and Tomorrow, Darton, Longmann & Todd, London 1978, p. 11. Translation corrected to accord with the original: Demain de la Liturgie, Paris: Cerf, Paris 1977, p. 10.
[38] As the investigative journalism of the Vatican Correspondent Diane Montagna has revealed (https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/exclusive-official-vatican-report) and as the book by Nicola Bux and Saverio Gaeta, La liturgia non è uno spettacolo: Il questionario ai vescovi sul rito antico: arma di distruzione di Messa?, Fede e Cultura, Verona 2025, documents further.
[39] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops, 7 July 2007.
Rather than suppressing the Traditional Latin Mass, can Cardinals Roche and Cupich be suppressed?? Just asking’
Many thanks to the author for this crucial article. She truly does what used to be called 'reporting'....