One Take: Traditionis at Five

One of the blessings of not being a professional writer is I can tackle topics whenever I want. For those who write to pay the bills, there is inevitably trend chasing. Therefore, a lot of writers had to have content put out to mark the five year anniversary of Pope Francis’ motu proprio Traditionis custodes, which (along with the explanatory letter and subsequent changes to Church law revoking the local bishops authority to govern the liturgy in his diocese) was the Pope’s attempt to suppress the Latin Mass without engaging in a formal suppression. The decree espoused a radicalism of papal authority and of liturgical vision, viewing the Church as lacking in full unity unless everyone worshipped in exactly the same way. In many ways, it was the apex of the vision of Pope Francis, who wanted to mold a Church in his image that would last for centuries. How is that vision holding up in its first year unmoored from its author?

That I did not write about it gives the game away. Instead of writing about the urgent risk to the TLM, or how we need to keep the flame alive after our suppression, I was able to play Palworld upon its launch and lose myself in it over the last two weeks. I did so safe in my belief that the Latin Mass was secure, and that the trajectory has not changed. At its heart, Traditionis custodes is an unpopular piece of legislation that relies entirely on a dead pope and how he saw the world. In the time since its promulgation, it has not grown in popularity, and whenever it is mentioned in public, the ratio of opposition to support is still quite lopsided. This state of affairs is further damaged by its supporters being unable to understand why TC has not taken root, and we traditionalists understand the nature of our attackers all to well.

It is said that all of the focus on the TLM makes little sense, as only two percent of American Catholics attend a TLM regularly, and only 13% have gone once in the last five years, per Pew. That is 1 in 50 of registered Catholics. yet it is one in 16 of those who attend Mass every Sunday. The TLM is also heavily skewed demographically. Among those 40 or younger, people are more comfortable with the TLM. This younger minority cares about the TLM a lot more than the wider Catholic public cares about restricting it. For anyone who studies history or politics, this is a classic case of the motivated minority. The easiest long term solution to a dedicated minority is the indifferent majority just offers a concession.

This is even more true when the current status quo is unpopular. By and large, the priesthood and episcopate in the United States have had an attitude of indifference to hostility towards Traditionis. Some will counter that this opposition is more to the disruptive nature of the decree, rather than some deep seated love of the TLM, or a surge in demand from the laity. These individuals will say this with a certain degree of smugness, not realizing they don’t understand anything. I think I can speak for most attending the TLM within the Church: we are fine with most people attending a Novus Ordo. We don’t like a lot of things about it, but we also know where time is. Even the Novus Ordo of 2026 isn’t the Novus Ordo of 2000, and the Novus Ordo of 2000 was not the Novus Ordo of 1975. Irrespective of the status of the TLM, the Novus Ordo is on an inevitable path of slow (painstakingly slow) reform where the majority of criticisms traditionalists launched at it are silently acknowledged and reformed. All we ask for is the freedom to contribute to that moment through what Benedict termed mutual enrichment. By Benedict’s own admission, the Novus Ordo needed firm grounding in tradition, and the TLM is the best way to ensure that. We may never return to the way where everyone in the Roman Rite worshipped the exact same way, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.

That spirit of inflexible tolerance (of insistence upon accommodation while still understanding reality) is contrasted with the dying gasps of those who want to maintain and advance the status quo. A good example of this is America Magazine Associate Editor Zac Davis, who viewed Pope Francis moves necessary for all traditionalists, because at one time when he attended the Latin Mass, he was an arrogant jerk. Mind you, he is more humble now attending the Novus Ordo, and he wants the Pope to make sure that everyone is afforded the opportunity to be as humble as he is, by force if necessary. Much has already been said of the deeply deranged writers at Where Peter is and their anti-traditionalism which is mostly a struggle session with their own pasts and their own relationships. You may foolishly think these individuals are right, but you need to be pretty in the weeds (and extremely online) to see this. To this day, most people still look at the TLM not as a threat to the Church, but as a curiosity that they can either indulge or safely ignore. Davis can accuse the world of being as horrible of a person as he was/is, but he who indicts the world convicts only himself.

This mentality is also on display in the highest echelons of the Church, such as a recent interview DDW Prefect Arthur Roche gave, in which he confidently predicted that there is no going back, Traditionis custodes is the future of the Church, and that Leo will ensure this. I think people put too much stock into what Leo does/doesn’t think. The case against Traditionis is straightforward: something that doesn’t have enthusiasm right away will not gain enthusiasm a decade or more from now. It will become less popular, and maintaining it will become less important. On the other side, traditionalists will not lower their intensity for the TLM or its liberty. The Pope who recognizes this will save the Church a lot of headache and have greater opportunity for renewal. It might as well be Leo, but it can/will be someone else if it is not him. That being said, Roche has a very self-interested reason to say TC won’t get overturned. If it does, then he will be looked at as the enforcer of a dead decree, and that almost everything he did as DDW prefect was not only unncessary, it was counterproductive. Roche’s activity regarding Traditionis was so flagrantly illegal he needed the Pope to change Church law to make it legal. If the decree collapses, his incompetence and malice will be the story, not “he brought unity to the Church and finally completed the will of the Second Vatican Council.”

Unlike many, I wasn’t that discouraged by anything Roche said in the recent interview. Roche also said at first TC would be applied to the FSSP. It wasn’t. To this day, Traditionis requires bishops to eliminate the TLM from parishes, a goal that has mostly failed. Yes, some bishops have enacted it with gusto, but the fallout/controversy from it makes most bishops skittish, and they do nothing instead. He is likely not to last past the year. Maybe his replacement continues in dedication, but he does not change the fundamental reality outlined here. Sometimes the Church has to exhaust every other option before doing the right thing, and all we can do is pray they come to that decision sooner rather than later. In the meantime, I’m not going anywhere, and that dedicated minority who prefers the TLM isn’t going anywhere. Given this reality, maybe it is time to talk terms?