[Editor’s Note/Preface:

When Pope Francis promulgated his July 2021 motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, which placed new restrictions on the celebration of the pre-Vatican II 1962 Roman liturgy, he sent an accompanying letter to the bishops of the world explaining his reasons for doing so. In the letter he refers to the results of a survey sent out to the bishops of the world, asking for their feedback regarding Pope Benedict’s 2007 motu proprio allowing wider access to what was then called the “Extraordinary Form” (EF) of the Roman Rite (the reformed post-Vatican II liturgy was known as the Ordinary Form), 13 years after its implementation.

Pope Francis wrote to the bishops:

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”, 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.

Many traditionalists and their supporters immediately began to question the pope’s claims about the results of the survey, suggesting the “fix was in” from the beginning, or that the vast majority of the responses were positive, meaning the pope was lying or had been misled. Some critics have called for the publication of the responses to the survey, demanding to know whether Traditionis Custodes was truly “justified.”

Back in 2021, journalist Ines San Martin of Crux investigated the distribution of the survey, contacting around 20 bishops from around the world. She provided the text of the nine questions on the survey, as well as an overview of the process, which varied from country to country:

Crux found that each bishops’ conference received the questionnaire and decided on their own how to implement it. In some countries, such as Chile, archbishops received it but not ordinary bishops. In neighboring Argentina, every bishop received it but many didn’t answer because there’s no significant presence of priests and faithful who favor the Tridentine Mass in their area.

In the United States, the questionnaire was reportedly sent to every bishop, though at least one “didn’t recall” receiving it, and if he did, he said he didn’t respond. In Australia every diocese received it, but in Europe and in Africa its distribution seems to have been more uneven.

To date, the Vatican has not revealed exactly how many bishops around the world actually received the survey, and, of that number, how many chose to respond.

The lack of concrete information coming from the Vatican has not prevented rumors from circulating or survey results from being leaked. Vatican journalist Diane Montagna wrote a lengthy article in the traditionalist newspaper The Remnant in which she shared (largely positive) excerpts from the responses of individual bishops that she had obtained. She was concerned that the responses from certain countries (like Italy) were not so positive, saying she had “reason to believe that some of the Italian bishops were coached in their responses.”

Still, she was much more positive about the results from other countries, writing, “In those regions where the traditional Mass is more widespread (i.e., France, the US, and England) the situation is very favorable. The CDF received a 65-75 percent response from these countries, and of that percentage more than 50 percent were favorable. This would have been reflected in the main report.”

Her theory — that the pope’s statements about the survey  did not reflect the actual results — has gained traction, and she appeared in the third episode of the Mass of the Ages trilogy to discuss it.

Montagna’s theory, however, overlooks a major piece of evidence that contradicts her claims. Back in February 2021, before Traditionis Custodes was published, traditionalist bloggers obtained a copy of the synthesis of the French bishops’ responses to the CDF survey and posted it on the web. Several traditionalist outlets criticized the document after it was leaked, but it has received little notice since (at least in English-language media). I remembered seeing it at the time, but because it was in French and the PDF was scanned at an angle with poor resolution, I never took the time to translate it in full. Neither did anyone else, apparently.

Now that I’ve translated the document (with electronic and human assistance), it’s understandable why traditionalists wouldn’t want to remind us of this document. It is devastating. The document’s format is similar to a synthesis document from a synodal assembly — the authors attempted to capture the main points and variety of perspectives present in the responses. This synthesis represents 87 of the 92 eligible dioceses in France (one French bishop sent his response directly to Rome and was not represented in the synthesis).

France has the second-largest traditionalist presence in the world (after the US). It is reasonable, therefore,  to suggest that this document had significant influence Pope Francis’s decision. Also, considering Montagna’s concerns about the responses of the bishops of Italy (the country with the third-most Tridentine Masses), it’s conceivable that the survey results did influence the Pope’s decision. — ML]

Synthesis of the Responses of the French Bishops

Conference of the Bishops of France

Summary of the results of the Consultation on the application of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum requested by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in April 2020

Some general data:

• We have completed questionnaires from 87 of the 92 metropolitan dioceses.
• (The contribution from the diocese of Verdun, which was sent directly to Rome, could not be included in this summary).

Dioceses for which we do not have feedback from the CEF:

• The diocese of Avignon
• Diocese of Beauvais, Noyon, Senlis
• Diocese of Le Mans
• Diocese of Nice
• The diocese of Vannes
• (To which we can add the Eastern ordinariates, the overseas dioceses and the diocese of the French armed forces).

Question 1:

What is the situation in your diocese with respect to the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite?

• For 4 dioceses, application of the motu proprio is irrelevant, as there is no celebration according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (EF) (Amiens, Cambrai, Châlons and Viviers).
• In most dioceses, one or two venues are dedicated at least in part to celebration according to the EF. On average, they welcome fewer than 100 people (mostly between 20 and 70).
• Most often, the place of celebration is a diocesan church or chapel where the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is also celebrated.
• Some dioceses have set up personal parishes (Blois, Laval, Strasbourg, Versailles) or quasi-parishes (Belley-Ars). Despite pressure, the bishop of Nîmes does not wish to set up such a personal parish in Nîmes.

Recourse to particular communities:

• Not all dioceses specify who is in charge of EF celebrations, but at least:
• 24 dioceses use the “Fraternal Society of St. Peter” (FSSP)
• 18 dioceses use priests from their own diocese (including a bishop emeritus!)
• 16 dioceses call on the “Institute of Christ Sovereign Priest” (ICKSP)

In lesser numbers:

• 2 dioceses call on the Fraternity of Saint Thomas Becket
• 2 dioceses call on the Community of the Good Shepherd
• 1 diocese calls on the Fraternity of Saint Vincent Ferrier
• 1 diocese calls on the Canons of the Mother of God
• 1 diocese calls on the Missionary Society of Divine Mercy
• (At least five dioceses call on several of these communities).
• Some dioceses also welcome religious communities who celebrate the EF (monasteries, contemplative convents, etc.), as well as schools linked to the above-mentioned communities, which adds color to local pastoral ministry.

It should be noted that some dioceses are marked by significant tourism and organize celebrations according to the 1962 Missal in places that welcome vacationers or in shrines during certain holiday periods.

Here are just a few examples:

• Fréius-Toulon: 10 places in the diocese celebrate according to the EF.
• Paris: 6 parishes (which also celebrate according to the Ordinary Form) bring together between 1,100 and 1,300 faithful.
• Versailles: 6 locations and also 1 regular monthly location. That is 17 Sunday Masses in all, including 11 in Versailles and Chesnay. Celebration according to the EF brings together 5,500 devotees every Sunday, or 9% of churchgoers.

Summary:

In most dioceses, the situation seems to have calmed down. Some points of tension remain, often linked to history and long-standing conflicts. Relationships are highly dependent on the personalities of the priests entrusted with the task of ensuring celebrations according to the EF.

The responses reveal the bishops’ desire to involve as many diocesan priests as possible in celebrations in the Extraordinary Form, but this is proving difficult due to the small number of priests involved.

Question 2:

If the extraordinary form is practiced there, does it respond to a true pastoral need or is it promoted by a single priest?

• Several bishops question the very notion of pastoral need and of a stable group as formulated in the motu proprio.
• In almost two-thirds of the dioceses that responded, the bishop considers that the EF celebration proposal meets a genuine pastoral need.
• However, one statement regularly came up: The Extraordinary Form meets the expectations of a few rather than a pastoral need. When does the expectation of the faithful become a pastoral need?
• Many bishops stress that the significance of offering this form of celebration is to help the faithful maintain a link with the Catholic Church and thus prevent them from seeking to join communities or places served by priests of the Society of St. Pius X. However, when a place run by the SSPX is nearby, there is no noticeable flow back to the Catholic Church.
• What’s more, this situation often keeps the faithful in a particular understanding of the Church (rejection of the Council, criticism of Pope Francis, hostility to a Church that is too open…).
• These Masses are rarely promoted by priests (just a few individuals), but much more often by young families with many children.
• Several bishops also note that EF celebrations can lead to ritual formalism.
• It often reinforces individualism and a sense of exclusivity.
• In the same vein, others question the theological formation of the priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter or the ICKSP.
• Finally, the attitudes of certain priests from these outside institutes sometimes hinders communion and fraternal life in the diocese.

Summary:

From the bishops’ responses, it is clear that the provision for Masses according to the 1962 Missal responds primarily to a concern for communion in which the bishop acts out of pastoral sensitivity. (This does not exclude occasional pressure from some ordinaries.)

Question 3:

In your opinion, what are the positive and negative aspects of using the Extraordinary Form?

The aspects listed below are expressions used by the bishops. They are listed in order of importance (recurrence).

Positive aspects

• Appeasement; fewer demands; satisfies the faithful
• Respects liturgical sensibility, “sense of the sacred,” silence.
• Promotes interiority and recollection. Solemnity.
• Promotes Eucharistic faith in the Real Presence.
• Preserves spiritual and liturgical heritage (especially hymns).
• Prevents some departures to the SSPX.
• Balm for those wounded after the Second Vatican Council.
• Unity of the Church is built around the Eucharist. Openness to ecclesial communion.
• More explicit sacrificial dimension of the Mass.
• A form that could play a role in ecumenical dialogue with Eastern Christians.
• We still await mutual enrichment.
• Celebrating ad orientem can be an antidote to the risk of clericalism.
• Better acquaintance between diocesan priests and those from institutes celebrating according to the EF.
• Some priests say that the EF helps them to be more attentive to the mysteries celebrated.

Negative aspects

• Wounds Church unity. Resistance to Vatican II (“resistance mentality”). Communities highly critical of the “conciliar Church.” “Two Churches.” “Liturgical sensitivities take precedence over ecclesial communion; the Eucharist that should unite what is separated.” Introduces a parallel Church. Creates two worlds that have difficulty understanding each other.The motu proprio introduced de facto bi-ritualism.
• Closed group; isolation; withdrawal; community apart; “entre-soi.” Subjectivism and individualism
• FSSP priests refuse concelebration, even at the Chrism Mass (contrary to Pope Benedict XVI’s letter): “Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.”
• No participation in diocesan life. Difficulty involving them in diocesan activities.
• “Catholics on the margins of the diocese.” Little involvement in diocesan life. No coordination of information with the diocese. Experiencing separation from the heart of diocesan unity.
• The challenges of using a different liturgical calendar and lectionary. Harmonizing the sanctoral cycle (“The calendar wasn’t fixed before the Council; why should it be after?”).
• Limited exposure to the Word of God.
• Nurtures a lack of understanding and a blurring of the lines between the different forms of the Roman rite.
• These faithful are deprived of a liturgical richness linked to the reform.
• No passage between the two forms of the single rite that could be expected.
• Weakens the community dimension of the celebration.
• Little mention of the Holy Spirit.
• Unfortunate introduction of rites from one form into the other.
• Difficult to enrich each other.
• Tension over sacramental ministry. Difficulties for catechesis (different paths).
• Favors liturgical tourism.
• Reading a bilingual missal doesn’t foster a union of hearts.
• Liturgical form remains hermetic.
• The EF faithful are marked by a singular worldview and political outlook (strong monarchic influence). Sociologically distinct, often inflexible.
• Poor preaching.
• The difficulty of entrusting a mission elsewhere to priests who have become “specialists” in the Extraordinary Form.
• Communities lobbying for what they want.
• Risk of identifying the Extraordinary Form Mass with the only “true” Mass.
• Lacking in missionary dimension.
• Many priests who celebrate exclusively according to the EF believe that the Ordinary Form Mass is illegitimate.
• Some institute priests celebrating according to the EF feel they are under the orders of the faithful, who supervise them (functionally Protestant).
• Impossibility of organizing common prayer times (Vespers or adoration).
• Liturgical training in these communities is ritual rather than theological.
• Lack of deployment of theological virtues. “Ritual comes before charity.”
• Difficulty in manifesting the unity of the Roman Rite.
• Suggests that liturgy is a matter of personal taste.
• The bishop’s authority over these communities is virtually non-existent.

Summary:

While two bishops did not see any positive aspects, almost all agree that the application of the motu proprio has had a calming effect. One might wonder if this calm is entirely good news; it was hoped that a dialogue would open on genuine adherence to conciliar teaching. Although the motu proprio has undeniably fostered calm, it has not necessarily increased communion, notes one bishop. The calm seems to have somewhat frozen the state of relations, and the dialogue has suffered as a result.

Bishops question the real communion of these faithful with the Catholic Church. A division seems to have solidified. The main difficulties faced by the bishops include diocesan communion, the use of different liturgical calendars and lectionaries, and the refusal to concelebrate.

Question 4:

Are the norms and conditions laid down in Summorum Pontificum respected?

• Bishops say they are often only indirectly aware that the norms of the motu proprio are being respected. However, most feel that these norms are respected.
• Several bishops, however, ask what the motu proprio designates as a stable group. It is clear that in many places where the EF is celebrated, a center of attraction is created for faithful coming from far away, sometimes from other dioceses.
• A dozen or so bishops also note that while the letter of the motu proprio seems to have been respected, the same cannot be said of its spirit. Adherence is formal, but this does not prevent us from questioning the sometimes critical, even suspicious stance of these communities towards the conciliar Church, beyond the liturgy. The preaching can reveal this drift.
• Here again, some bishops have pointed out that Benedict XVI did not want priests to celebrate exclusively in the EF; yet, as we have already noted, FSSP priests do not depart from the exclusive use of this form.
• Finally, links with the bishop are not without issues. Some are not informed of decisions (establishing schools, special celebrations, etc.), and are even less involved in confirmations. This sometimes raises the question of obedience in the face of episcopal decisions.

[We could also refer here to question 6 on the use of the missal].

A specific comment on the SSPX:

Archbishop of Rennes: For marriage, according to the letter of the Ecclesia Dei Commission of April 4, 2017, the local ordinary can ask a priest to celebrate it according to the liturgical tradition prior to Vatican Council II. However, the Society of Saint Pius X categorically refused the priest I sent.

Furthermore, it seems that the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X have the newlyweds sign a document in which they promise not to go before the diocesan tribunal in the event of a request for recognition of the nullity of the marriage.

This issue is absent from the motu proprio.

Summary:

While the norms of the motu proprio seem to have been respected by the majority, questions remain as to the reception of its spirit. Clarification of the notion of stable group and the non-exclusivity of the EF would be beneficial.

Question 5:

Do you know whether the Ordinary Form has adopted elements of the Extraordinary Form in your diocese?

For almost all the bishops who answered this question, there has been no adoption of elements of the Extraordinary Form.

We note a few minor elements:

• Greater use of Latin in ordinaries and hymns in general
• Older ornaments and use of the liturgical color black
• Additional signs of the cross
• Veiled statues during Passiontide
• Blessing of the water cruet
• Bells; communion tray

On a positive note, a dozen bishops have noted a greater rigor and care in celebrating the Ordinary Form by a good number of young priests (greater fidelity to the rubrics). But the bishops wonder whether this is more a question of generation than of the influence of the EF.

Summary:

The overall observation is that we are witnessing two worlds that do not meet. No mutual enrichment. When elements are introduced in the ordinary form, they are more a source of tension than enrichment.

Often, extraordinary means exclusive. (Several bishops regret that the question was asked in one direction only. What about enrichment of the EF by the ordinary form?)

Question 6:

For the celebration of Mass, is the Missal promulgated by Pope John XXIII in 1962 used?

In the vast majority of cases, this Missal is used for celebrations in the Extraordinary Form.

In some dioceses, other Missals, sometimes older, may be used (Aix, Le Havre, Nevers, Nimes, Pamiers, Rouen, Tulle), or prayers, rites or deviations may be added (Bordeaux, Nantes, Paris). In the diocese of Laval, the Dominican rite is used.

The diocese of Valence declares that it is not the 1962 Missal that is used, without specifying which one.

In Versailles, the bishop urges that the 1964-65 accomodata be taken into account.

The bishop of Nîmes points out that it is difficult to know whether the Good Friday prayer for the Jews is actually done according to the form modified by Pope Benedict XVI (as is the use of certain prefaces).

Summary:

Although the bishops acknowledge that they have not verified the use of the missal in all places, it does seem that the 1962 missal is used most of the time. A few exceptions to this norm have been noted, without creating any particular difficulties.

Question 7:

Apart from the celebration of Mass in the Extraordinary Form, are there any other celebrations (e.g. Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Ordination, Divine Office, Easter Triduum, Funerals) according to the pre-Vatican II liturgical books?

In most dioceses where Mass is celebrated in the Extraordinary Form, the other sacraments are also celebrated. Only 5 bishops declare that there are no other celebrations.

Catechumens do not always take part in the Rite of Election and do not benefit from the Scrutinies.

Bishops celebrate confirmations regularly (every one or two years). In some dioceses, communities are reluctant to appeal to the local ordinary.

A recurring question is: What catechesis is available to those preparing for the sacraments?

These catechetical programs are often far removed from diocesan standards.

We note that bishops are vigilant in having acts transcribed into parish registers.

The celebration of weddings, funerals, baptisms and the anointing of the sick in accordance with the ancient rite are punctual and exceptional (a few individuals per year). Occasionally, the ritual is adapted slightly.

For the Easter Triduum, the bishops are not always informed of what is celebrated, and there is no general rule for French dioceses. One point of attention concerns Holy Thursday. It’s not always easy to prevent two celebrations.

Rare are the dioceses where the bishop is called upon for ordinations. Only the bishop of Fréjus-Toulon celebrates ordinations in the extraordinary form every year.

Summary:

Where a community is established, it virtually always celebrates the full range of sacraments.

Question 8:

Has the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum had any influence on the life of seminaries – particularly yours, and houses of formation?

Seminaries:

Bishops sending seminarians to the seminaries of Aix, Ars, Bordeaux, Issy-les-Moulineaux, Lyon, Notre-Dame de Vie, Orléans, Paris, Rennes and Toulouse say they have not observed any particular influence of the motu proprio on seminary life. (In Lyon, we note the failed experiment of the Maison Sainte Blandine).

• In Bayonne, one Mass a week is celebrated according to the EF; it is optional. One Mass a week is celebrated in the ordinary form in Latin and is compulsory.
• In Toulon, one Mass a month is celebrated in the Extraordinary Form.
• In Versailles, seminarians attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form several times a year.
• The Community of Saint Martin seminary does not celebrate Mass in the Extraordinary Form.
• Some bishops have noted that seminarians from certain areas have left these places of formation to join the FSSP.
• Several bishops stress the importance of training in liturgical understanding in seminaries.
• This should lead to a proper understanding of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
• Seminarians should not be led to believe that there are two forms to choose from in the Latin Church.

A pedagogy is to be developed so the presentation of the EF is made in a non-segregating manner. Some seminarians form themselves, through their own network or by spending time in religious communities which celebrate the extraordinary form. Others take advantage of their time off to familiarize themselves with the EF.

One bishop suggests that we consider training some seminarians to celebrate according to the EF, in order to free ourselves from dependence on particular institutes, notably the FSSP, which celebrate exclusively according to the Extraordinary Form.

A general comment is that seminarians have a poor command of Latin.

(One bishop is surprised that the ICKSP organized a trip with young people under 18 to Gricigliano[1] for ordinations).

Summary:

The motu proprio’s influence on seminary life is weak. On the other hand, its impact on seminarians is not entirely negligible. Bishops are attentive to the training provided in their seminaries or those on which they depend, and exercise vigilance over the way in which seminarians live out their attachment to the liturgy.

Question 9:

Thirteen years after the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, what advice would you give on the subject of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite?

On this question, to which the bishops gave a wide-ranging response, we can identify recurring elements grouped here by major theme:

Unity of diocesan life

Encourage the faithful who use the Extraordinary Form to participate more fully in diocesan life.

Bishops are keen to encourage the Extraordinary Form faithful to participate with other diocesans in the Chrism Mass, ordinations and diocesan pilgrimages. The distinctiveness and exclusivity of the celebration of the EF by certain communities undermines the unity of the diocesan presbyterate, and limits the service of these priests in the dioceses to the celebration of the Extraordinary Form. This undermines the diocesan impetus for unity and peace. A parallel pastoral approach can be implemented insidiously. Some bishops have noted that communities often make demands, and that the motu proprio has only served to reinforce a small minority in their shortcomings and the cultivation of their particularisms by demanding more rights.

A world apart, a parallel Church is taking shape.

Liturgical calendar and lectionary

Share the same liturgical calendar (sanctoral cycle) and lectionary.

Virtually all bishops stress the importance of having the same lectionary. (The Canons of the Mother of God in Lagrasse are in favor of this). This would be a significant mark of the enrichment of the Extraordinary Form by the Ordinary Form.

Highlighting the Word of God

Opening up the treasure trove of the Word of God in this way would also enable FSSP and ICKSP priests to enter into an understanding of liturgical teaching stemming from the reform, but also from Verbum Domini or Evangelii Gaudium.

Exclusivity of celebration according to the 1962 Missal

Reversing the exclusive use of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite

The FSSP’s exclusive use of the Extraordinary Form poses a problem for diocesan life and is contrary to the motu proprio.[2] It is a cause for scandal. It should not be possible for some within the Catholic Church to deem it impossible to celebrate the present Mass, sometimes going so far as to claim a “proper charism.” (One bishop suggests that a priest who refuses to celebrate in the ordinary form should not be incardinated.)

In addition, as already mentioned, the training of a few diocesan priests in the EF could make it possible to respond to various requests without calling on other institutes, and also contribute to diocesan unity.

Doctrinal concern

Nurturing the communion of faith within the Church

The challenge is to maintain and nurture the full communion of certain communities with the Catholic Church. Indeed, many of the communities celebrating the EF make no secret of their criticism of, or even distrust of, the Second Vatican Council and its orientations. There is an ecclesiological question underlying the application of the motu proprio.

We must not forget the Church’s moral teaching… until we get Amoris Laetitia.

Missionary dynamism

Remedy the weakness of the missionary dynamism of ecclesial communities celebrating according to the EF.

For many members of the Extraordinary Form, Christian life boils down to Sunday practice, with no further spiritual or theological training. This is a far cry from Pope Francis’ concept of missionary discipleship.

It is important to make priests of Ecclesia Dei institutes more sensitive to the needs of God’s people than to questions of personal sensitivity. One way of doing this would be to invite priests to work on the link between the Eucharist and apostolic life in the service of a section of the People of God.

The FSSP could also extend its zeal beyond communities celebrating in the Ordinary Form.

Points for consideration:

Be careful not to extend the EF, so as not to induce a misunderstanding of the place of this form, which could come to be seen as a rite.

Young people with fragile self-identity are easily fascinated by the EF. They are encouraged in their obsidious fever by mediocre preaching and social networks that impoverish reflection on liturgical formation (Ars celebrandi), history and theology, reinforcing each young person’s ideology and even excesses.

Ecclesiology (study of the dogmatic and pastoral Constitutions of Vatican II).

Ensure the obedience of communities celebrating the Extraordinary Form.

During the March 2020 ad limina visit (1st group of bishops), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith referred this question to the Congregation for Divine Worship, which in turn referred it to the CDF.

Questions:

• Should we promote the coexistence of both forms in the same parish, as opposed to erecting personal parishes?
• What attention and vigilance can we bring to the formation given in institutes such as ICKSP, FSSP, etc.?
• Why is there such a craze, particularly among young people, for the extraordinary form; the scrupulous form?

Summary:

The bishops overwhelmingly support the principle of a unified celebration, the use of the lectionary, the same liturgical calendar (sanctoral cycle) and adherence to the current magisterium.

The publication of the motu proprio had a laudable intention, but it did not bear the expected fruit. Although it honors a principle of reality, unrelenting work to achieve unity continues to be necessary. Promises of mutual enrichment between the two forms of the single Roman rite remain largely unfulfilled.

Rigid mutual mistrust continues.

The implementation of the motu proprio has failed to deliver on its vision for unity in the Church. Ultimately, the practical implementation of the motu proprio raises challenges that are more ecclesiological than liturgical.

Notes:

[1] The seminary of the traditionalist Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP), located in an ancient chateau at Gricigliano in Tuscany, Italy.

[2] During the March 2020 ad limina visit (The first group of bishops) the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith referred this question to the Congregation for Divine Worship… which itself “returned the ball” to the CDF.

---

Image: By David Joyce – IMG 3661, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=70287212