Ite, missa est: Diocese of Knoxville

 

The End of an Era: The Extraordinary Form Transition in the Diocese of Knoxville

As of October 13, 2025, at 03:52 PM EDT, a significant announcement has reverberated through the Catholic community in the Diocese of Knoxville, Tennessee. A post on X by user Discipulus777, shared on October 12, 2025, at 19:19 UTC, brought to light a letter distributed after Mass, detailing Bishop James Mark Beckman's decision to phase out the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite—often erroneously called the "Traditional Latin Mass" (TLM) by so-called traditionalists—across the diocese. This transition, effective November 24, 2025, will see the cessation of Extraordinary Form Masses at key locations including Holy Ghost Church in Knoxville, St. Dominic Church in Kingsport, and the Basilica of Saints Peter and Paul in Chattanooga. The news has left many parishioners, including the poster and his wife who recently relocated to the area partly for access to these Masses, feeling "gut-kicked" and searching for answers. This blog post will explore the details of this decision, the possible reasons behind it, and the theological context surrounding the two forms of the Roman Rite, clarifying common misconceptions.

The letter, penned on October 7, 2025, and signed by Bishop Beckman in collaboration with local pastors, outlines a deliberate shift from the Extraordinary Form to the Ordinary Form, aligning with Pope Francis's motu proprio Traditionis Custodes. The final Extraordinary Form Mass is scheduled for December 28, 2025, with exceptions allowing its celebration on specific Sundays until then, after which it will be entirely replaced. The announcement has sparked immediate reactions, with hundreds of long faces reported leaving Mass and a trending topic emerging on X, reflecting widespread shock and criticism. Parishioners are left without diocesan-provided alternatives, prompting calls for prayer and potential appeals to higher ecclesiastical authorities.

 The Context of the Decision

This move by Bishop Beckman comes in the wake of Traditionis Custodes, issued by Pope Francis on July 16, 2021, which significantly restricted the use of the Extraordinary Form. The document revoked the liberalizing provisions of Pope Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum (2007), which had permitted broader celebration of the 1962 Missal under certain conditions. Traditionis Custodes asserts that the liturgical books promulgated after the Second Vatican Council, particularly the Roman Missal of Paul VI, constitute the "unique expression" of the lex orandi (law of prayer) of the Roman Rite. It delegates to local bishops the authority to regulate or restrict the Extraordinary Form, aiming to foster unity within the Church by limiting what some perceive as a divisive liturgical practice.

The Diocese of Knoxville's decision reflects this directive, with the letter emphasizing compliance with papal guidance. The transition includes retaining traditional elements such as ad orientem worship, Gregorian chant, communion rails, Latin, and incense in the Ordinary Form, suggesting an attempt to soften the blow for those accustomed to the Extraordinary Form's aesthetic and spiritual richness. However, the lack of alternative locations for the Extraordinary Form has fueled discontent, with some parishioners considering turning to the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) or other traditionalist groups, despite the diocese's measured tone promoting unity.

 Possible Reasons for the Shutdown

Several factors may underpin Bishop Beckman's decision to end the Extraordinary Form in Knoxville. First, the influence of Traditionis Custodes is paramount. Pope Francis's motu proprio was a response to concerns that the widespread use of the Extraordinary Form, as encouraged by Summorum Pontificum, had fostered division rather than unity. Reports of communities using the older rite to reject Vatican II reforms or question the legitimacy of the Ordinary Form may have prompted stricter oversight. In Knoxville, where the Extraordinary Form had thrived since the 1980s at places like Holy Ghost Church, this could have been perceived as a challenge to the bishop's authority or the post-conciliar liturgical vision.

Second, logistical and pastoral considerations might play a role. The diocese, covering 14,000 square miles of East Tennessee, serves an estimated 70,000 Catholics across 50 parishes. Maintaining two forms of the Mass requires trained priests, resources, and coordination, which could strain a growing diocese already managing post-Hurricane Helene recovery efforts in 2024. Consolidating worship into the Ordinary Form might streamline pastoral care, ensuring consistency and accessibility, especially as the Church adapts to a diversifying congregation influenced by immigration from Catholic countries.

Third, theological and ecclesiological priorities could be at play. The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) sought to renew the liturgy, making it more accessible through vernacular languages and active participation, as embodied in the Ordinary Form. Some bishops, including possibly Beckman, may view the Extraordinary Form's retention as a step backward, potentially alienating younger Catholics unfamiliar with Latin or the Tridentine structure. The letter's call for unity under Christ, echoing John 15:5 ("Without Him—no matter our motives or feelings—we will not bear much fruit"), suggests a desire to align the diocese with the Council's vision of a unified lex orandi.

Finally, personal or political dynamics within the Church hierarchy might contribute. Bishop Beckman, appointed by Pope Francis in May 2024, succeeds a tenure marked by controversy under Bishop Richard Stika, who retired in 2023 amid allegations investigated under Vos estis lux mundi. Beckman's alignment with Francis's liturgical stance could signal a fresh start, reinforcing papal authority and distancing the diocese from past tensions. However, this risks alienating a vocal minority devoted to the Extraordinary Form, as seen in the X post's emotional outcry.

 Clarifying the Terminology: Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms

A critical point of discussion arising from this news is the terminology used by so-called traditionalists, who often refer to the Extraordinary Form as the "Traditional Latin Mass" (TLM) and the Ordinary Form as the "Novus Ordo." This nomenclature is misleading and requires correction. The Mass, by its very nature, is traditional, rooted in the Church's 2,000-year liturgical heritage. Both the Ordinary Form, promulgated by Paul VI in 1969, and the Extraordinary Form, based on the 1962 Missal of John XXIII, are legitimate expressions of the Roman Rite's lex orandi. This dual expression was formally recognized by Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum, which stated that what was sacred for previous generations remains sacred today and cannot be entirely forbidden.

Summorum Pontificum allowed priests to celebrate the Extraordinary Form privately and, with parish priest approval, publicly where a stable group requested it, emphasizing its continuity with the Church's tradition. However, Traditionis Custodes reframed this relationship, asserting the Ordinary Form as the primary liturgical norm and subjecting the Extraordinary Form to episcopal discretion. Both documents affirm that the Roman Rite encompasses these two forms, not as competing traditions but as complementary expressions of the same faith. The misuse of "TLM" and "Novus Ordo" by some traditionalists reflects a preference for the older rite, sometimes coupled with skepticism toward Vatican II, which Traditionis Custodes seeks to address by reinforcing the Council's liturgical reforms.

This theological nuance is essential for understanding the Knoxville decision. The Extraordinary Form is not being "banned" in a vacuum but transitioned within a broader framework where the Ordinary Form is prioritized. The retention of traditional elements in Knoxville's Ordinary Form Masses—ad orientem, chant, Latin—underscores that tradition is not lost but reinterpreted, aligning with the Church's call for unity in diversity.

 The Human Impact and Future Outlook

The X post by Discipulus777 captures the human toll of this transition. The poster's recent move to Tennessee, motivated in part by the proximity of Extraordinary Form Masses, highlights how liturgical preferences shape community and identity. The lack of alternatives, combined with the abrupt announcement, has left parishioners feeling abandoned, with some vowing to seek out SSPX chapels or other traditionalist outlets. This reaction mirrors trends on X, where users like TaylorRMarshall and RaymondArroyo lament the "tyrannical suppression" of the Extraordinary Form and question Pope Leo XIV's silence, suggesting a broader crisis in Catholic liturgical life.

Yet, the letter's pastoral tone offers a counterpoint, urging the faithful to embrace the change as a shared journey of faith. The scheduled discussion on October 19, 2025, post-Mass, invites dialogue, potentially opening a space for reconciliation. The diocese's growth—driven by conversions and immigration—may also provide an opportunity to integrate the Extraordinary Form's devotees into a vibrant Ordinary Form community, preserving their spiritual heritage within the new framework.

Looking ahead, the future of the Extraordinary Form in Knoxville hinges on several factors. Appeals to the Vatican, as hinted by some X users, could prompt a review, though Traditionis Custodes gives bishops significant latitude. The survival of the one remaining Extraordinary Form Mass at St. Mary's in Athens, served by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, offers a glimmer of hope, though its distance may limit access. Alternatively, grassroots efforts to establish private chapels or attract traditionalist orders like the FSSP could emerge, though these would require episcopal approval under current restrictions.

 Conclusion

The Diocese of Knoxville's decision to end the Extraordinary Form is a poignant moment in the ongoing evolution of Catholic liturgy. Rooted in Traditionis Custodes and shaped by pastoral, theological, and political considerations, it reflects a broader tension between tradition and renewal. While the loss of the Extraordinary Form pains many, the Church's lex orandi remains intact through both its Ordinary and Extraordinary expressions. As the faithful navigate this transition, the call to unity under Christ, as articulated by Bishop Beckman, offers a path forward—challenging yet hopeful. The coming months will reveal whether Knoxville can heal its liturgical divide or whether this marks the beginning of a new chapter of dissent.

For further reading:

- Traditionis Custodes (July 16, 2021)

- Summorum Pontificum (July 7, 2007)

- Roman Catholic Diocese of Knoxville official statements

- X threads by Discipulus777 and related users

 

A Critique of Cardinal Blase J. Cupich’s Article: “Tradition vs. Traditionalism”

A Critique of Cardinal Blase J. Cupich’s Article: “Tradition vs. Traditionalism”

Cardinal Blase J. Cupich’s article, published on September 3, 2025, in Chicago Catholic, titled “Tradition vs. Traditionalism,” (Tradition vs. traditionalism - Cardinal Blase J. Cupich - Chicago Catholic) offers a thought-provoking reflection on the nature of Catholic tradition, its living dynamism, and its distinction from what he describes as traditionalism. Drawing on the insights of historian Jaroslav Pelikan and the theological legacy of St. John Henry Newman, 

Cardinal Cupich articulates a vision of tradition as a vibrant, evolving force in the life of the Church, contrasting it with traditionalism, which he characterizes as a stagnant adherence to past practices. The article is a compelling contribution to ongoing discussions about the Church’s relationship with its past and its mission in the present. Its strengths lie in its theological depth, its grounding in historical and ecclesial perspectives, and its alignment with the Church’s call to engage the modern world while remaining rooted in its living faith. 

However, while the article makes a strong case for embracing the development of doctrine and liturgical reform, Cardinal Cupich’s generalization about traditionalists risks oversimplifying a diverse group of faithful Catholics, including myself, who cherish tradition without idolizing it. Below, I offer a critique of the article, highlighting its merits while addressing this concern and situating my perspective as a Catholic who loves both the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms of the Mass.

 Theological Depth and Historical Grounding

One of the most commendable aspects of Cardinal Cupich’s article is its theological depth, rooted in the distinction between “tradition” and “traditionalism” as articulated by Jaroslav Pelikan: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” This quote, which serves as the article’s cornerstone, is a powerful lens through which to view the Church’s ongoing mission. Cardinal Cupich uses Pelikan’s insight to frame tradition as a dynamic, Spirit-guided process that allows the Church to adapt and grow while remaining faithful to its apostolic roots. By invoking Pelikan, a respected historian of Christianity, the Cardinal grounds his argument in a scholarly tradition that resonates with both theologians and lay readers. This appeal to intellectual authority strengthens the article’s credibility and invites readers to engage with the concept of tradition as something alive and responsive to the needs of each age.

The article’s reference to St. John Henry Newman, recently declared a Doctor of the Church by Pope Leo, further enhances its theological richness. Cardinal Cupich highlights Newman’s understanding of the development of doctrine, noting that Newman recognized the organic growth of Catholic teachings over time. For example, Newman observed that Protestants accepted doctrines like the Trinity and Christ’s divinity, which developed historically, but were inconsistent in rejecting other doctrines, such as purgatory or those related to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which also emerged through the Church’s reflection. By drawing on Newman, Cardinal Cupich underscores the legitimacy of doctrinal development, a concept central to Catholic theology since Vatican II. This reference not only honors Newman’s legacy but also situates the article within a broader theological conversation about how the Church discerns truth over time. It is a reminder that the Catholic faith is not static but grows through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, a point that resonates deeply with the Council’s teachings in Dei Verbum.

 Alignment with Vatican II and Papal Teaching

Cardinal Cupich’s article shines in its alignment with the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, particularly its emphasis on liturgical reform and the Church’s mission to engage the modern world. He cites Pope Francis’s 2022 remarks, where the Holy Father critiqued those who “call themselves traditional” but are “looking to the past, going backward.” This papal perspective reinforces the article’s central thesis: true tradition is forward-looking, enabling the Church to witness to the Gospel in new contexts. Cardinal Cupich argues that accepting the liturgical reforms of Vatican II is essential to understanding what it means to be a Church of tradition. This point is particularly compelling in light of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Council’s constitution on the liturgy, which called for a renewal of worship to make it more accessible and participatory for the faithful. By connecting the liturgical reforms to the Church’s broader mission, Cardinal Cupich presents a vision of Catholicism that is both rooted and adaptive, capable of speaking to contemporary challenges while drawing on the wisdom of the past.

The article’s emphasis on the Church’s capacity to “go deeper into the tradition in order to move forward” is a particularly inspiring articulation of this balance. Cardinal Cupich frames reform not as a rejection of the past but as a deepening of the Church’s engagement with its living faith. This perspective is a powerful antidote to the polarization that often characterizes debates about liturgy and doctrine. By presenting tradition as a dynamic process, the Cardinal invites Catholics to see change not as a threat but as an opportunity to live out the Gospel more fully. This aligns with Pope Francis’s vision of a Church that is “on the move,” responsive to the signs of the times and open to the Spirit’s guidance.

 A Call to Mission and Engagement

Another strength of the article is its emphasis on the Church’s mission to witness to the Gospel in new contexts. Cardinal Cupich argues that true reform allows the Church to communicate the faith effectively in diverse cultural and historical settings. This missionary impulse is a hallmark of Vatican II’s vision, as seen in documents like Gaudium et Spes, which calls the Church to engage with the modern world. By framing tradition as a tool for evangelization, Cardinal Cupich challenges Catholics to move beyond nostalgia and embrace the Church’s call to be a living presence in the world. This is particularly relevant in an era marked by rapid cultural and technological change, where the Church must find new ways to proclaim the Gospel without losing its identity.

The article’s focus on mission also resonates with the universal call to holiness articulated by Vatican II. Cardinal Cupich’s reference to the Church’s ability to “witness to the Gospel in new contexts” underscores the role of every Catholic—clergy and laity alike—in carrying forward the faith. This inclusive vision is a reminder that tradition is not the exclusive domain of theologians or liturgists but belongs to the entire People of God. By emphasizing this communal aspect, the Cardinal fosters a sense of shared responsibility for the Church’s mission, encouraging Catholics to see themselves as active participants in the unfolding of tradition.

 Addressing the Critique: Generalization About Traditionalists

While Cardinal Cupich’s article is a robust defense of the Church’s living tradition, it falters in its generalization about traditionalists. The Cardinal’s characterization of traditionalism as “the dead faith of the living” risks painting all those who cherish traditional practices with too broad a brush. As someone who loves tradition and serves both the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms of the Mass, I find this generalization problematic. I deeply appreciate the beauty of traditional vestments, lace, incense, bells, Latin, and devotions, but I do not deify them or turn them into idols. These externals are man-made aids that enhance our sensory experience of worship, helping us to focus on God, but they are not intrinsically connected to the divine nature. I understand that the Church has authority over the liturgy and its traditions (sacramentum ordinis), and that the liturgies of one period are no more or less efficacious than those of another. The Mass, whether in Latin or the vernacular, whether celebrated with ornate vestments or simple ones, is the same sacrifice of Christ, and its value does not depend on external forms.

Cardinal Cupich’s critique of traditionalism is valid when applied to those who elevate rubrics and customs to the level of idols, treating them as essential to the validity of the Mass or the Sacraments. For example, some traditionalists insist that the Mass must be in Latin or that Communion must be received only on the tongue from a priest for it to be valid. This mindset mirrors the Pharisees’ legalism, as Jesus critiqued in Mark 7:13, where human traditions were used to nullify the word of God. When Catholics—clergy, laity, or religious orders—treat man-made rules as indispensable, they risk turning the Sabbath into an idol, as if the purpose of worship were to serve the rules rather than to lead us to God. In this sense, Cardinal Cupich’s warning about traditionalism as a “dead faith” is apt, as it highlights the danger of reducing the richness of the Catholic faith to a set of rigid practices.

However, not all traditionalists fall into this trap. Many, like myself, cherish traditional practices because they are powerful aids to worship, not because we believe they are inherently superior or necessary for salvation. The Extraordinary Form, with its reverence and solemnity, can inspire a profound sense of the sacred, while the Ordinary Form offers accessibility and participation that resonate with modern sensibilities. Both forms are valid expressions of the same Eucharistic mystery, and I serve them with equal devotion, recognizing their role in drawing the faithful closer to Christ. By generalizing traditionalists as backward-looking, Cardinal Cupich overlooks the vibrant faith of those who embrace tradition as a living, breathing part of the Church’s heritage, not as a museum piece to be preserved unchanged.

 The Role of Devotions and Liturgical Practices

Another area where Cardinal Cupich’s approach could be nuanced is his apparent skepticism toward certain traditional devotions and practices. While he does not explicitly mention these in the article, his broader critique of traditionalism could be interpreted as dismissive of practices like altar rails, the St. Michael prayer, or the Hail Mary prayed after Mass. These devotions, when understood properly, are valuable aids to the spiritual life of Catholics. For example, altar rails can foster a sense of reverence for the Eucharist, signaling the sacredness of the sanctuary, without implying that their absence diminishes the Mass’s validity. Similarly, prayers like the St. Michael prayer or the Hail Mary can deepen devotion to the saints and the Blessed Virgin, provided they are not treated as magical formulas or mandatory rituals.

The key, as with statues or other sacramentals, is to use these practices as tools for meditation and spiritual growth, not as ends in themselves. A statue of a saint can help us reflect on their virtues or the mysteries of the faith, but if we insist that it must look a certain way or be placed in a specific location to be “valid,” we risk falling into the idolatry Cardinal Cupich as critiques. This is where some traditionalists err, but it is not true of all who value tradition. By occasionally taking a hard line against practices like altar rails or post-Mass devotions, Cardinal Cupich risks alienating faithful Catholics who find these practices meaningful without idolizing them. A more balanced approach would acknowledge the spiritual benefits of these traditions while cautioning against their misuse.

 The Danger of Legalism in Traditionalism

Cardinal Cupich’s article rightly highlights the danger of legalism, which can manifest when traditionalists treat rubrics and customs as ends rather than means. This is a critical point, as it echoes Jesus’s teachings about the Sabbath being made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). When Catholics insist that the Mass must adhere to specific forms—such as Latin, specific vestments, or Communion on the tongue—to be valid, they risk elevating human traditions above the divine reality of the Eucharist. The Church’s teaching is clear: the validity of the Sacraments depends on proper form, matter, and intention, not on external customs, no matter how venerable. By drawing attention to this, Cardinal Cupich challenges Catholics to focus on the substance of the faith rather than its external expressions.

This critique is particularly relevant in light of debates surrounding Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis’s 2021 motu proprio that restricted the use of the Traditional Latin Mass. Cardinal Cupich’s support for the liturgical reforms of Vatican II aligns with the Pope’s call to prioritize the Novus Ordo as the “unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” While this position has sparked controversy, it reflects a commitment to the Church’s unity and its mission to evangelize in the present age. The article’s emphasis on the development of doctrine and liturgy serves as a reminder that the Church has always adapted its practices to meet the needs of the faithful, from the adoption of pagan elements in early Christian worship to the reforms of Vatican II.

 A Personal Perspective as a Traditionalist

As a Catholic who loves tradition, I find much to admire in Cardinal Cupich’s article, particularly its call to embrace tradition as a living reality. However, I believe the Church benefits from a diversity of liturgical expressions, including both the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms. My love for vestments, incense, bells, and Latin stems from their ability to elevate the soul toward God, not from a belief that they are essential to the faith. I serve both forms of the Mass with joy, recognizing that each offers unique gifts to the Church. The Extraordinary Form’s reverence and mystery can inspire awe, while the Ordinary Form’s simplicity and accessibility invite active participation. Both are valid, and both can lead souls to Christ.

I also appreciate the Church’s authority over the liturgy and its traditions. The sacramentum ordinis grants the Church the power to regulate worship, ensuring that it serves the spiritual needs of the faithful. The liturgies of one era are not inherently superior to those of another; the Tridentine Mass of the 16th century and the Novus Ordo of the 20th century are equally efficacious when celebrated with reverence and faith. By acknowledging this, I align with Cardinal Cupich’s broader point about the need to avoid idolizing specific forms. However, I believe he could strengthen his argument by recognizing that not all traditionalists are rigid or backward-looking. Many of us are committed to the Church’s mission and open to the Spirit’s guidance, even as we cherish the beauty of tradition.

 Conclusion

Cardinal Blase J. Cupich’s “Tradition vs. Traditionalism” is a masterful reflection on the nature of Catholic tradition, offering a compelling case for its dynamic, Spirit-led character. By drawing on Pelikan, Newman, and Vatican II, the Cardinal articulates a vision of the Church that is both rooted in its apostolic heritage and responsive to the needs of the present. His emphasis on the development of doctrine, the importance of liturgical reform, and the Church’s missionary call is a powerful reminder of what it means to be a Catholic in the modern world. However, his generalization about traditionalists overlooks the diversity of those who love tradition, including myself, who serve both forms of the Mass and value traditional practices as aids to worship, not as idols. By occasionally taking a hard stance against devotions and practices like altar rails, Cardinal Cupich risks alienating those who find these traditions spiritually enriching. Nevertheless, his article is a valuable contribution to the Church’s ongoing discernment of how to live out its faith in a changing world, and it invites all Catholics to embrace tradition as a living, breathing reality that leads us closer to Christ.

How to End Traditiones Custodes Restrictions

The Extraordinary Form of the Mass, with its timeless beauty and reverence, stands as a cherished expression of the Church’s liturgical heritage. As Pope Benedict XVI emphasized in Summorum Pontificum, there is only one Mass with two expressions—the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms—united in their essence as the same sacred rite. Pope Paul VI, reflecting on Vatican II, reaffirmed that the Mass remains unchanged in its core, even as the Church, guided by her authority as noted in Sacramentum Ordinis, retains the power to adapt, update, or even remove rites.

The liturgy has evolved throughout the Church’s history, reflecting her living tradition (Joseph Jungmann notes in The Mass of the Roman Rite, “The Roman Mass… has undergone a long process of development” -Vol. 1, p. 135). True love for the Church calls for obedience and acceptance of this reality, as the liturgy belongs to the Church under the pope’s stewardship. Regrettably, a small but vocal faction within the traditionalist movement has promoted schism, heresy, conspiracies, racism, antisemitism, and defiance against the pope and bishops, acting with a sense of entitlement. This prompted Pope Francis to issue restrictions in Traditionis Custodes, affecting traditionalists broadly. Yet, with a change of heart and renewed fidelity, these restrictions could be eased, fostering unity in the Church’s worship.

For Traditionis Custodes to be relaxed by a future Pope or Pope Leo XIV, those "traditionalist" Catholics pushing ideologies via the Extraordinary Form, as Pope Francis mentioned, would need to demonstrate significant changes in their approach and behavior.

Below is a list outlining the necessary conditions that can remedy the situation regarding the Extraordinary Form restrictions, in our opinion:

• Cease Promoting Ideologies: Traditionalists must stop pushing rigid ideological stances that create division, focusing instead on unity within the Church’s framework. They must stop seeing the Church, her teachings and leaders as "conservative/right" and "liberal/progressive."
  
• Priorities: They should focus on the great mandate of evangelizing and spreading the faith, not using every opportunity and means to attack the Church, her teachings and leaders. No one will be attracted to the Church when her own members have a toxic relationship with her.
  
• Abandon Fictitious Terms: Discontinue using terms like “TLM,” “NO,” “Traditional Latin Mass,” or “Novus Ordo,” which are not recognized by the Church and are borderline heretical. The Church acknowledges only one Mass with two expressions: the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form (summorum pontificum).
  
• Submission to Rome and the Pope: Fully submit to the authority of Rome and the Pope, respecting his decisions and teachings without dissent or selective obedience.
  
• Embrace Vatican II: Study and accept the teachings and intentions of Vatican II, rejecting false narratives or misinterpretations that distort its purpose.
  
• Respect the First See: Refrain from judging the Pope or the Holy See, acknowledging that Church teaching prohibits anyone from judging the First See.
  
• Avoid Acting as Self-appointed Custodians of the Faith: Stop attempting to act as self-appointed guardians of the Church’s tradition, as this role is not granted to individuals by Church teaching. Only the pope is the protector of the Sacred Deposit alongside with the bishops.
  
• Recognize Tradition as Living: Accept that Catholic tradition is a living organism, not confined to a specific historical period, and cease promoting one era as the sole authentic form of Catholicism. The Catholic religion them becomes about one's palate or taste instead of the Truth that is objective and timeless. It becomes a religion of the individual worshiping the individual's personal tastes.
  
• Avoid Schismatic Tendencies: Refrain from adopting attitudes or actions reminiscent of Martin Luther, ensuring they do not place themselves above the Church’s hierarchy. No one can judge the first see.
  
• Reject Conspiracy Theories: Set aside social media-driven conspiracy theories and falsehoods that undermine the Church’s authority and sow division. Pundits who use social media to present their false narrative as "authentic Catholicism" do so for a profit. They make money off of the naive who believe their lies and do not vet their false claims.
  
• Fidelity to Church Authority: Demonstrate unwavering faithfulness to the Magisterium, Sacred Scripture, all ecumenical councils, canon law, and the Church’s hierarchical structure. Each Catholic is not a pope or magisterium.
  
• Look Forward, Not Backward: Focus on moving forward in faith, honoring the past without imposing it as a rigid template for the Church’s future.

By adhering to these conditions, traditionalists who engage in ideologies would show a commitment to unity, obedience, and fidelity to the Church’s living tradition, potentially creating conditions for a relaxation of Traditionis Custodes under a future pontiff like Pope Leo XIV.

The goal of Pope Francis via Traditiones Custodes is to protect the Extraordinary Form. To make sure the One Mass that is of all ages is free from ideology and corruption. That this Extraordinary Form exists to worship the One God, unite people in prayer, and serve to amplify faith. It is not meant to be used to belittle other Catholics who do not attend this form or to use it as leverage with false pretense that one is a "real Catholic" while others are not or are "modernists."

The Roman Rite or Latin Rite has changed over time. There have been several missals. The Missal of 1570 is not the same at the Missal of the 5th century or 1962. It has developed with some parts removed or added over time.

The question those traditionalists engaging in ideologies must ask themselves is: Want free access to the extraordinary form of the Mass? It is easy: submit to Rome and set ideologies aside. Leave behind Protestant lite. Assimilate ALL of Catholicism, her teachings, disciplines, and councils.

Ite, missa est: Pope Motu Propio restricts Extraordinary Form of the Mass

After rumors that Pope Francis was going to eliminate the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, a new motu propio was released which has so-called traditionalists up in arms. The motu propio entitled Traditionis Custodes (which means Guardians of Tradition) does not eliminate the Extraordinary Form but limits its use.  In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI released his Summorum Pontificum motu propio expanding the use of the Extraordinary Form. However, Benedict XVI had in mind that this would bring about unity with those who held onto the Extraordinary Form. He had hoped that the motu propio will allow Catholics to worship in either form while still remaining in union with Rome. However, this did not happen as he had hoped and is why Pope Francis had to step in.  

Instead of bringing about unity and fidelity to Rome, Summorum Pontificum was used by fanatics to attack Vatican II, the Ordinary Form the Mass, and the Church as she exists post-Vatican II.  Catholics who attend the Ordinary form are labeled, modernists. They are attacked as heretical while those who attend the Extraordinary Form see themselves as being the sole authentic Catholics who pray in the "Mass of all ages." The Ordinary Form is often smeared as the "Novus Ordo," a pejorative term.  Novus Ordo is not a Catholic term and was never used in any Liturgical documents to describe the Ordinary Form.  The term is used by fanatics and conspiracists who push the idea that the Ordinary Form is part of the "New World Order." As one can imagine, this has brought a lot of bickering and divisions in the Catholic Roman Rite. 

Here is the new motu propio:

APOSTOLIC LETTER 

ISSUED "MOTU PROPRIO"

BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF

FRANCIS

«TRADITIONIS CUSTODES»

On the Use of the Roman Liturgy

Prior to the Reform of 1970

Official translation

 

Guardians of the tradition, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome constitute the visible principle and foundation of the unity of their particular Churches. [1] Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the proclamation of the Gospel and by means of the celebration of the Eucharist, they govern the particular Churches entrusted to them. [2]

In order to promote the concord and unity of the Church, with paternal solicitude towards those who in any region adhere to liturgical forms antecedent to the reform willed by the Vatican Council II, my Venerable Predecessors, Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI, granted and regulated the faculty to use the Roman Missal edited by John XXIII in 1962. [3] In this way they intended “to facilitate the ecclesial communion of those Catholics who feel attached to some earlier liturgical forms” and not to others. [4]

In line with the initiative of my Venerable Predecessor Benedict XVI to invite the bishops to assess the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum three years after its publication, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith carried out a detailed consultation of the bishops in 2020. The results have been carefully considered in the light of experience that has matured during these years.

At this time, having considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I now desire, with this Apostolic Letter, to press on ever more in the constant search for ecclesial communion. Therefore, I have considered it appropriate to establish the following:

Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.

Art. 2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, [5] to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese. [6] Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.

Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970:

§ 1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;

§ 2. is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes);

§ 3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962. [7] In these celebrations the readings are proclaimed in the vernacular language, using translations of the Sacred Scripture approved for liturgical use by the respective Episcopal Conferences;

§ 4. to appoint a priest who, as delegate of the bishop, is entrusted with these celebrations and with the pastoral care of these groups of the faithful. This priest should be suited for this responsibility, skilled in the use of the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970, possess a knowledge of the Latin language sufficient for a thorough comprehension of the rubrics and liturgical texts, and be animated by a lively pastoral charity and by a sense of ecclesial communion. This priest should have at heart not only the correct celebration of the liturgy, but also the pastoral and spiritual care of the faithful;

§ 5. to proceed suitably to verify that the parishes canonically erected for the benefit of these faithful are effective for their spiritual growth, and to determine whether or not to retain them;

§ 6. to take care not to authorize the establishment of new groups.

Art. 4. Priests ordained after the publication of the present Motu Proprio, who wish to celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962, should submit a formal request to the diocesan Bishop who shall consult the Apostolic See before granting this authorization.

Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.

Art. 6. Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life, erected by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, fall under the competence of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies for Apostolic Life.

Art. 7. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, for matters of their particular competence, exercise the authority of the Holy See with respect to the observance of these provisions.

Art. 8. Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated.

Everything that I have declared in this Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio, I order to be observed in all its parts, anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I establish that it be promulgated by way of publication in “L’Osservatore Romano”, entering immediately in force and, subsequently, that it be published in the official Commentary of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Given at Rome, at Saint John Lateran, on 16 July 2021, the liturgical Memorial of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, in the ninth year of Our Pontificate.

FRANCIS

[1] Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “ Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23 AAS 57 (1965) 27.

[2] Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “ Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 27: AAS 57 (1965) 32; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree concerning the pastoral office of bishops in the Church “ Christus Dominus”, 28 october 1965, n. 11: AAS 58 (1966) 677-678; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 833.

[3] Cfr John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988: AAS 80 (1988) 1495-1498; Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 777-781; Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Ecclesiae unitatem”, 2 july 2009: AAS 101 (2009) 710-711.

[4] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988, n. 5: AAS 80 (1988) 1498.

[5] Cfr Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “ Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 41: AAS 56 (1964) 111; Caeremoniale Episcoporum, n. 9; Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament, Instruction on certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist “ Redemptionis Sacramentum”, 25 march 2004, nn. 19-25: AAS 96 (2004) 555-557.

[6] Cfr CIC, can. 375, § 1; can. 392.

[7] Cfr Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decree “ Quo magis” approving seven Eucharistic Prefaces for the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, 22 february 2020, and Decree “ Cum sanctissima” on the liturgical celebration in honour of Saints in the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite, 22 february 2020: L’Osservatore Romano, 26 march 2020, p. 6.

Source: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html

Pope Francis included a letter alongside the motu propio elaborating more on why the motu propio was necessary. Here it is: 

Rome, 16 July 2021

Dear Brothers in the Episcopate,

Just as my Predecessor Benedict XVI did with Summorum Pontificum, I wish to accompany the Motu proprio Traditionis custodes with a letter explaining the motives that prompted my decision. I turn to you with trust and parresia, in the name of that shared “solicitude for the whole Church, that contributes supremely to the good of the Universal Church” as Vatican Council II reminds us.[1]

Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984[2] and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988[3] — was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.

Many in the Church came to regard this faculty as an opportunity to adopt freely the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and use it in a manner parallel to the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Paul VI. In order to regulate this situation at the distance of many years, Benedict XVI intervened to address this state of affairs in the Church. Many priests and communities had “used with gratitude the possibility offered by the Motu proprio” of St. John Paul II. Underscoring that this development was not foreseeable in 1988, the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 2007 intended to introduce “a clearer juridical regulation” in this area.[4] In order to allow access to those, including young people, who when “they discover this liturgical form, feel attracted to it and find in it a form, particularly suited to them, to encounter the mystery of the most holy Eucharist”,[5] Benedict XVI declared “the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and newly edited by Blessed John XXIII, as a extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi”, granting a “more ample possibility for the use of the 1962 Missal”.[6]

In making their decision they were confident that such a provision would not place in doubt one of the key measures of Vatican Council II or minimize in this way its authority: the Motu proprio recognized that, in its own right, “the Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite”.[7] The recognition of the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V “as an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi” did not in any way underrate the liturgical reform, but was decreed with the desire to acknowledge the “insistent prayers of these faithful,” allowing them “to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the editio typica of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as the extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church”.[8] It comforted Benedict XVI in his discernment that many desired “to find the form of the sacred Liturgy dear to them,” “clearly accepted the binding character of Vatican Council II and were faithful to the Pope and to the Bishops”.[9] What is more, he declared to be unfounded the fear of division in parish communities, because “the two forms of the use of the Roman Rite would enrich one another”.[10] Thus, he invited the Bishops to set aside their doubts and fears, and to welcome the norms, “attentive that everything would proceed in peace and serenity,” with the promise that “it would be possible to find resolutions” in the event that “serious difficulties came to light” in the implementation of the norms “once the Motu proprio came into effect”.[11]

With the passage of thirteen years, I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”,[12] has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.

At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”.[13] But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”. The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition “which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit” (DV 8). A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council,[14] and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.

The objective of the modification of the permission granted by my Predecessors is highlighted by the Second Vatican Council itself. From the vota submitted by the Bishops there emerged a great insistence on the full, conscious and active participation of the whole People of God in the liturgy,[15] along lines already indicated by Pius XII in the encyclical Mediator Dei on the renewal of the liturgy.[16] The constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium confirmed this appeal, by seeking “the renewal and advancement of the liturgy”,[17] and by indicating the principles that should guide the reform.[18] In particular, it established that these principles concerned the Roman Rite, and other legitimate rites where applicable, and asked that “the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet present-day circumstances and needs”.[19] On the basis of these principles a reform of the liturgy was undertaken, with its highest expression in the Roman Missal, published in editio typica by St. Paul VI[20] and revised by St. John Paul II.[21] It must therefore be maintained that the Roman Rite, adapted many times over the course of the centuries according to the needs of the day, not only be preserved but renewed “in faithful observance of the Tradition”.[22] Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements.

A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.” One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency — “I belong to Paul; I belong instead to Apollo; I belong to Cephas; I belong to Christ” — against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.[23] In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors. The distorted use that has been made of this faculty is contrary to the intentions that led to granting the freedom to celebrate the Mass with the Missale Romanum of 1962. Because “liturgical celebrations are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity”,[24] they must be carried out in communion with the Church. Vatican Council II, while it reaffirmed the external bonds of incorporation in the Church — the profession of faith, the sacraments, of communion — affirmed with St. Augustine that to remain in the Church not only “with the body” but also “with the heart” is a condition for salvation.[25]

Dear brothers in the Episcopate, Sacrosanctum Concilium explained that the Church, the “sacrament of unity,” is such because it is “the holy People gathered and governed under the authority of the Bishops”.[26] Lumen gentium, while recalling that the Bishop of Rome is “the permanent and visible principle and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the multitude of the faithful,” states that you the Bishops are “the visible principle and foundation of the unity of your local Churches, in which and through which exists the one and only Catholic Church”.[27]

Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. I take comfort in this decision from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St. Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum. For four centuries this Missale Romanum, promulgated by St. Pius V was thus the principal expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite, and functioned to maintain the unity of the Church. Without denying the dignity and grandeur of this Rite, the Bishops gathered in ecumenical council asked that it be reformed; their intention was that “the faithful would not assist as strangers and silent spectators in the mystery of faith, but, with a full understanding of the rites and prayers, would participate in the sacred action consciously, piously, and actively”.[28] St. Paul VI, recalling that the work of adaptation of the Roman Missal had already been initiated by Pius XII, declared that the revision of the Roman Missal, carried out in the light of ancient liturgical sources, had the goal of permitting the Church to raise up, in the variety of languages, “a single and identical prayer,” that expressed her unity.[29] This unity I intend to re-establish throughout the Church of the Roman Rite.

Vatican Council II, when it described the catholicity of the People of God, recalled that “within the ecclesial communion” there exist the particular Churches which enjoy their proper traditions, without prejudice to the primacy of the Chair of Peter who presides over the universal communion of charity, guarantees the legitimate diversity and together ensures that the particular not only does not injure the universal but above all serves it”.[30] While, in the exercise of my ministry in service of unity, I take the decision to suspend the faculty granted by my Predecessors, I ask you to share with me this burden as a form of participation in the solicitude for the whole Church proper to the Bishops. In the Motu proprio I have desired to affirm that it is up to the Bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the liturgical life of the Church of which he is the principle of unity, to regulate the liturgical celebrations. It is up to you to authorize in your Churches, as local Ordinaries, the use of the Missale Romanum of 1962, applying the norms of the present Motu proprio. It is up to you to proceed in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration, and to determine case by case the reality of the groups which celebrate with this Missale Romanum.

Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II, and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the “holy People of God.” At the same time, I ask you to be vigilant in ensuring that every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities that can easily degenerate into abuses. Seminarians and new priests should be formed in the faithful observance of the prescriptions of the Missal and liturgical books, in which is reflected the liturgical reform willed by Vatican Council II.

Upon you I invoke the Spirit of the risen Lord, that he may make you strong and firm in your service to the People of God entrusted to you by the Lord, so that your care and vigilance express communion even in the unity of one, single Rite, in which is preserved the great richness of the Roman liturgical tradition. I pray for you. You pray for me.

FRANCIS

__________________

[1] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23 AAS 57 (1965) 27.

[2] Cfr. Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter to the Presidents of the Conferences of Bishops “Quattuor abhinc annos”, 3 october 1984: AAS 76 (1984) 1088-1089.

[3] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei”, 2 july 1988: AAS 80 (1998) 1495-1498.

[4] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.

[5] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.

[6] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797.

[7] Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 779.

[8] Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 779.

[9] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.

[10] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797.

[11] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 798.

[12] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797-798.

[13] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796.

[14] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23: AAS 57 (1965) 27.

[15] Cfr. Acta et Documenta Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II apparando, Series I, Volumen II, 1960.

[16] Pius XII, Encyclical on the sacred liturgy “Mediator Dei”, 20 november 1947: AAS 39 (1949) 521-595.

[17] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, nn. 1, 14: AAS 56 (1964) 97.104.

[18] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 3: AAS 56 (1964) 98.

[19] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 4: AAS 56 (1964) 98.

[20] Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum, editio typica, 1970.

[21] Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum Ioannis Pauli PP. II cura recognitum, editio typica altera, 1975; editio typica tertia, 2002; (reimpressio emendata 2008).

[22] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 3: AAS 56 (1964) 98.

[23] 1 Cor 1,12-13.

[24] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 26: AAS 56 (1964) 107.

[25] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 14: AAS 57 (1965) 19.

[26] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 6: AAS 56 (1964) 100.

[27] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 23: AAS 57 (1965) 27.

[28] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Costitution on the sacred liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4 december 1963, n. 48: AAS 56 (1964) 113.

[29] Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution “Missale Romanum” on new Roman Missal, 3 april 1969, AAS 61 (1969) 222.

[30] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium”, 21 november 1964, n. 13: AAS 57 (1965) 18. 

[01015-EN.01] [Original text: Italian]

[B0469-XX.01]

As you can see, the Pope took action after a survey or questionnaire was sent to bishops and they responded showing concern that the Extraordinary Form was being hijacked by fanatics and used to promote an agenda that is causing division in the Church.  Pope Francis in his accompanying letter explains how his predecessors hoped that expanded faculty to use the Extraordinary Form would bring about unity. He writes:

"Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984[2] and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988[3] — was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal. Many in the Church came to regard this faculty as an opportunity to adopt freely the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and use it in a manner parallel to the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Paul VI."

Pope Francis continues to explain that his predecessor Benedict XVI hoped that his motu propio Summorum Pontificum would bring those who desired the Extraordinary Form to accept the "binding character of Vatican Council II" and would be  "faithful to the Pope and to the Bishops."

"It comforted Benedict XVI in his discernment that many desired 'to find the form of the sacred Liturgy dear to them,” “clearly accepted the binding character of Vatican Council II and were faithful to the Pope and to the Bishops.'"

He continues that the hope was that “the two forms of the use of the Roman Rite would enrich one another." This did not happen. Pope Francis acknowledges that abuses have taken place in the celebration of the liturgy, particularly with the Ordinary Form. Some have played around with the liturgy attempting to be creative but distorting the liturgy in the process.  He adds that he is also saddened that the Missale Romanum of 1962 is being used to attack Vatican II as being inauthentic Catholicism and only the Extraordinary Form as being the "true Church." He writes:

"At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”.

"But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the 'true Church'."

In regards to the divisions caused by fanatics of the Extraordinary Form, the pope uses Scripture where Christians aligned themselves to certain figures instead of with God and the faith itself. He then adds that he was forced to defend the unity of the Body of Christ and revoked the faculty granted by his predecessors. He writes:

"One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency — “I belong to Paul; I belong instead to Apollo; I belong to Cephas; I belong to Christ” — against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted.[23] In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors. The distorted use that has been made of this faculty is contrary to the intentions that led to granting the freedom to celebrate the Mass with the Missale Romanum of 1962. Because “liturgical celebrations are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity”,[24] they must be carried out in communion with the Church. Vatican Council II, while it reaffirmed the external bonds of incorporation in the Church — the profession of faith, the sacraments, of communion — affirmed with St. Augustine that to remain in the Church not only “with the body” but also “with the heart” is a condition for salvation.[25]"

In the closing of the letter, he explains his decision and gives a bit of liturgical history of how the Form of the Mass has changed throughout the centuries, even before Trent.  He writes:

"I take the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. I take comfort in this decision from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St. Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum. For four centuries this Missale Romanum, promulgated by St. Pius V was thus the principal expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite, and functioned to maintain the unity of the Church. Without denying the dignity and grandeur of this Rite, the Bishops gathered in ecumenical council asked that it be reformed; their intention was that “the faithful would not assist as strangers and silent spectators in the mystery of faith, but, with a full understanding of the rites and prayers, would participate in the sacred action consciously, piously, and actively”.[28] St. Paul VI, recalling that the work of adaptation of the Roman Missal had already been initiated by Pius XII, declared that the revision of the Roman Missal, carried out in the light of ancient liturgical sources, had the goal of permitting the Church to raise up, in the variety of languages, 'a single and identical prayer,' that expressed her unity.[29] This unity I intend to re-establish throughout the Church of the Roman Rite."

As for the motu proprio itself, the text is short and lists the changes. Liturgical books promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II are declared to be the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.  Bishops will be the sole moderator, promoters, and guardians of the liturgy. They are to regulate celebrations and are the only ones who can give permission to use the 1962 missal.  Priests who wish to celebrate the Extraordinary Form must request permission formally from his bishop and the bishop must then consult the Apostolic See.  The motu propio limits the use of the Extraordinary Form but does not eliminate it. More power is given to the bishop to regulate its use and all liturgies in general. No new groups can be authorized and all groups that celebrate the Extraordinary Form must do so at the discretion of the local bishop. 

You can imagine that those who call themselves "traditionalists" are not too happy. Pundits and armchair liturgists like Taylor Marshal, Steve Skojec, and Rorate Caeli took to their "bubbles" or echo chambers to air out their frustration and cry out to the world from their basements, so to speak. Taylor describes the motu proprio as a "bomb" from Pope Francis and called for his followers to resist the pontiff. Of course, he promoted his book and another article as an "ah-ha, I told ya so." 

Slow motion punch 🤜🏻 in face for FSSP and ICKSP: pic.twitter.com/5MteBljoKK

— Dr Taylor Marshall™️ (@TaylorRMarshall) July 17, 2021

To her credit, @dianemontagna was vindicated against her naysayers on today's Motu Proprio restricting the Traditional Latin Mass. What we see today is close to "Draft 1" that she reported in her article way back from June (not July, June) 1, 2021:https://t.co/QhdddHgVj5

— Dr Taylor Marshall™️ (@TaylorRMarshall) July 17, 2021

"Coach Marshall Talk" at half time under a loss: "We need to resist the Pope but with a smile and love and charity"
Full Podcast here on YouTube: https://t.co/oz1wvEtlnW pic.twitter.com/5G7s4T1Eiv

— Dr Taylor Marshall™️ (@TaylorRMarshall) July 16, 2021

Pope Francis Drops Bomb on Latin Mass and Targets Traditional Catholics in new doc Traditionis Custodeshttps://t.co/PZogTtOu0P via @YouTube pic.twitter.com/xLOnNsnYDT

— Dr Taylor Marshall™️ (@TaylorRMarshall) July 16, 2021

Steve Skojec of One Peter Five wrote an angry article calling the Catholic Church "crippled religion" and falsely claims that "summorum pontificum gets the ax." He states that "novusordoism is not Catholicism" and goes the way of the slippery slope claiming Catholics will flock to the Society of St. Pius X, go to other rites or join the Orthodox Church. He describes what the pope did today as "an act of abuse" and accuses him of being anti traditionalist. 

"Rorate Caeli" calls the motu proprio an "attack of hatred and vengeance agains the Latin Mass." As expected, in an immature fit, Rorate Caeli refuses to call Pope Francis by his proper name and resorts to his civil name, Jorge Mario Bergoglio in an attempt to invalidate his papacy. The blog angrily attacks Pope Francis writing, "Bergoglio is in reality a man of vengeance.  A pope of vengeance.  An angry bitter Jesuit settling scores through vengeance." The rest of the post is a call to arms to resist or "carry on." The blog pretty much does what Pope Francis described in the motu propio and letter. It offers a petty jab against the Ordinary Form by pitting the two forms against each other. They write, "So, now we must choose. Do we side with tradition, or do we cave to novelty?" 

It seems clear to anyone who has intelligence that the Pope has pretty much exposed those who are not faithful to the Church and just follow their own agenda. Today, Taylor, Skojec, One Peter Five, Rorate Caeli, and others came out of the closet so to speak. Pope Francis forced them to reveal themselves as nothing more than sede vacantist cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose only what is palatable to them. 

These people cannot be called authentic Catholics. They are frozen in the 1950s and do not understand how tradition works. The Mass rite has changed over time. The first Mass was in Aramaic and then changed to Greek. As the Church grew, each region has its own rite. It was not until Trent that the Roman Rite was codified. Even after this, the Latin Rite Mass has changed several times. To pick one rite and call it the "Mass of all Ages" or the "Traditional Latin Mass" is truly ridiculous and poor knowledge and understanding of the history of the liturgy. 

The only "traditional Mass" is the one that is concurrent and deemed the Ordinary Form. This is the Mass that is based on tradition and has been part of the living tradition that is not set in one specific point in history. Today's motu propio was needed in the Church. As the Holy Father explained, the Extraordinary Form is being used to cause division and create a sect within Catholicism that labels itself the "true Church." As pope, he has to keep the bark of Peter united. The Pope is the visible head of the Church. Note that he did not eliminate the Extraordinary Form nor condemned it. He is trying to eliminate the agendas behind those who use rite and condemns their pervert ulterior motives. If Taylor, Skoject, Rorate Caeli, and others have issues with this, then they are not truly Catholic. What they believe is what they created, not Catholicism itself. As the pope stated, the liturgy is not a private thing that we own. It is not entertainment which we select based on our tastes. The liturgy belongs to the Church and she has total control over it.  I love both forms and serve both. I cannot pit them against each other because it is the same Mass!  Anyone who is upset with this motu propio needs to evaluate where they stand on the Catholic faith. As stated, the liturgy belongs to the Church and the pope and bishops are the ones who defend, promote, guard, and regulate it.  It is no surprise why the motu propio was named "Traditionis Custodes."  The real guardians of tradition spoke.  So-called traditionalists online are not the custodians of the liturgy or traditions. Taylor, Skojec, Rorate Caeli, etc are just armchair pundits and have no expertise or say on anything related to Catholicism.  As Catholics, canon law allows for us to voice concerns to our pastors, but not to dictate or correct them when it pertains to matters of the Church. 

What are your thoughts?  Post them below.  Be sure to follow the rules for commentary. 

Source:

https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2021/07/16/0469/01015.html#ingL

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2021-07/pope-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes-1962-roman-missal-liturgy.html

https://onepeterfive.com/crippled-religion-strikes-again-and-summorum-pontificum-gets-the-axe/

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/07/a-rorate-cli-editorial-attack-of-hatred.html

https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/pope-francis-traditionis-custodes

https://angelusnews.com/news/vatican/pope-francis-issues-restrictions-on-extraordinary-form-masses-in-new-motu-proprio/

https://angelusnews.com/news/vatican/pope-francis-issues-restrictions-on-extraordinary-form-masses-in-new-motu-proprio/