It is no secret that the Catholic Church has faced mounting tension over its liturgical life in recent years. Since the publication of Traditionis Custodes (TC) in 2021, which restricted celebrations of the 1962 Roman Missal, many Catholics attached to the Traditional Latin Mass have felt marginalized and uprooted. Across the United States, the dioceses that have implemented TC have struggled to balance pastoral concern for those who prefer the Tridentine liturgy with fidelity to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Given the difficulty of the situation and a variety of competing priorities, the recent decision by the Diocese of Knoxville, Tennessee, to replace the Tridentine Mass with the 2002 Roman Missal celebrated in Latin represents one of the most prudent and pastoral responses yet to these challenges.
Many observers have suggested that Knoxville’s approach may offer a glimpse of what Pope Leo XIV envisions as the Church’s path forward. In his September interview with Crux reporter Elise Ann Allen, Leo reflected on the tensions surrounding the Latin Mass and expressed frustration that the liturgy has become “a political tool.” He clarified that “people always say ‘the Latin Mass,’” but there is “no problem” with celebrating the Vatican II rite in Latin. That comment—widely discussed among Vatican watchers—suggested that his vision for reconciling the Church’s internal liturgical rifts may center not on exclusion but on reintegration: maintaining Latin, reverence, and tradition within the reformed Missal itself.
The change there did not come suddenly. As the Basilica of Saints Peter and Paul’s pastor, Very Rev. J. David Carter, explained in his October 12 homily, the parish had offered the 1962 Missal for more than a decade, responding to the legitimate spiritual desires of the faithful. Yet when Bishop Mark Beckman recently received a directive from the Dicastery for Divine Worship to implement Traditionis Custodes, the diocese discerned a path forward that would preserve the best of the traditional form while fully embracing ecclesial unity. The plan calls for all celebrations of the Latin Mass to transition from the 1962 Missal to the 2002 Missal—retaining Latin, chant, sacred silence, and ad orientem posture, but celebrated according to the reformed liturgy of Paul VI. As Fr. Carter explained to his parishioners, this decision is not “the path of loss—it is the path of unity.”
In his October 19 homily, Fr. Carter addressed parishioners who were concerned that they may no longer be able to practice Catholic tradition. He made it clear that this was not the case, saying:
“We do not have to give up our traditional Catholic way of life simply because we move to the Church’s current missal. There is a false dichotomy in thinking that way. We remain a very traditional and devout Catholic community. Continue your devotional prayers and practices, penitential observances, celebrations, and all the wonderful things you treasure from traditional Catholic life. They are not being taken away from you. I renew my promise to honor and preserve what is good, true, and beautiful and to weave those treasures into our life as Catholic Christians. We have a truly rich and beautiful tradition that deserves to continue inspiring us. I am for that.”
Fr. Carter then reminded his parishioners of the problem that TC is meant to address, stating, “The error of the traditionalist movement is that it rejects the authentic magisterium of the Second Vatican Council and the reform of the liturgy that followed. This obstinate refusal to submit to the bishops and pope united in council is the essence of schism.” Given this error, he suggested that moving away from the Tridentine Mass to the 2002 Missal “is truly the only path forward I see, once we acknowledge the error of rejection of the reform that lies at the root of so many who ask only for the ancient form.”
The Advantages of the Knoxville Model
The Knoxville model may appear modest to most ordinary Catholics, but its implications are significant to traditionalists. Since Traditionis Custodes was issued, many dioceses have responded by relocating or consolidating Tridentine communities. In Charlotte, North Carolina, the bishop recently limited the TLM to a single rural chapel. In the Archdiocese of Washington, it was moved out of parishes as well, restricted to three non-parochial chapels. Similar policies in Detroit and other dioceses have led traditionalists to complain of being driven into “exile” and forced to leave the parishes they call home (even though that is not the intention behind these moves). Knoxville’s decision avoids this problem by allowing communities to remain in their home parishes. By celebrating the 2002 Missal in Latin, the diocese preserves continuity of place, people, and prayer while eliminating the parallel structures that have too often fostered a sectarian mentality.
That continuity is not only pastoral but theological. For decades, the traditionalist movement has given mixed signals on whether its attachment to the older form of the liturgy is devotional or doctrinal. Certainly, many faithful simply love the reverence, beauty, and sense of transcendence that the Tridentine liturgy evokes. But others—particularly those influenced by prominent figures such as Peter Kwasniewski and Eric Sammons—view the preconciliar Missal as the “true” Roman Rite, and, as Kwasniewski put it, they see attempts to restrict it as “iconoclasm against the liturgy in order to prevent a restoration of the true icon, the traditional rite.” Such figures claim that the reformed liturgy represents a rupture in Catholic theology, a “Protestantized” rite that obscures the sacrificial nature of the Mass.
These criticisms reveal precisely why Knoxville’s decision is so important. The Latin Novus Ordo preserves all that is legitimate and noble in the Church’s liturgical heritage while making explicit that the reformed Missal is the one Roman Rite in full communion with the See of Peter. If the objection is merely aesthetic—about language, music, or orientation—the 2002 Missal in Latin satisfies those desires. But if the objection is theological—rejecting the Council itself or the magisterial authority of recent popes—then the problem lies not in the liturgy but in ecclesial communion. By replacing the 1962 Missal with the 2002 Missal in Latin, Knoxville exposes that distinction with pastoral clarity.
The move also responds to a practical pastoral concern: the growing shortage of priests trained to celebrate the older form. As Fr. Carter observed, he was the only priest in the basilica competent to offer the 1962 Mass. That situation made the community fragile—dependent on one priest’s health or schedule—and created a split calendar and rhythm of parish life. Transitioning to the 2002 Missal reunifies the community under a single liturgical calendar and cycle of readings, allowing all parishioners to pray and grow together. As Carter put it, “We are not the masters of the liturgy; we are its servants.”
Knoxville’s approach echoes Pope Benedict XVI’s original hope for “mutual enrichment” between the two forms—a hope that, as Pope Francis later acknowledged, was too often betrayed by the emergence of ideological opposition to the Council. Benedict envisioned the older form contributing its sense of sacredness and continuity, while the reformed liturgy contributed a broader lectionary and active participation. In practice, however, the Tridentine enclaves became havens for resistance to the Magisterium. Knoxville’s decision effectively realizes Benedict’s vision by integrating the enrichment within a single form—the reformed Missal celebrated in Latin.
The Response
Reactions from traditionalist media have been predictably sharp. Critics in traditionalist media outlets such as Crisis Magazine and OnePeterFive reacted swiftly, portraying Knoxville’s decision as yet another attempt to suppress the ancient liturgy. Writers and commentators sympathetic to the traditionalist movement described the change as part of a broader “abolition” of sacred worship, arguing that the hierarchy’s restrictions on the Tridentine Mass represent a systematic dismantling of the Church’s liturgical heritage.
Yet the diocese’s plan is anything but abolition. It preserves Latin, chant, and solemn ritual; it continues the discipline of beauty; it teaches the faithful that reverence and obedience are not opposites. The Latin Novus Ordo makes visible the Church’s insistence that true tradition is dynamic, not static. It shows that fidelity is expressed through continuity in communion, not through isolation.
Knoxville’s decision also offers a model of prudence. It neither alienates the faithful attached to the older form nor allows the persistence of parallel ecclesial identities. Instead, it bridges the gap by reuniting those elements of the Roman tradition that belong together: Latin language, Gregorian chant, and the renewed liturgy of Vatican II. It demonstrates that the beauty and solemnity so often associated with the Tridentine Mass are not the property of one era but the rightful inheritance of the whole Church.
What makes the Knoxville experience especially compelling is that it seems to anticipate Pope Leo’s own concerns. In his interview with Crux, Pope Leo lamented that the liturgy has been used as a proxy in ideological battles, arguing that it “has become a political tool.” He emphasized the need for genuine dialogue—including among bishops and liturgical communities—to bridge fissures in the Church without sacrificing unity.
If the Holy Father’s vision for implementing Traditionis Custodes in the years ahead involves integrating the treasures of the old within the form of the new, Knoxville’s decision may indeed point the way forward.
The deeper issue, of course, is obedience. Fr. Carter told the congregation that this was “a clear call to the parish that we respond in humility and obedience,” asking them to “cultivate a mature response to these changes.”
The Ecclesiological Heart of the Matter
The crisis of the liturgy has never been primarily aesthetic but ecclesiological. The question is not whether the Church has been faithful to the liturgical patrimony of the West, but whether her members have remained faithful to her unity under Peter. The disobedience that once tore the Church in the Reformation is mirrored, in miniature, whenever Catholics treat the liturgy as a private possession rather than a public act of worship offered by the whole Body of Christ.
Knoxville’s solution does not punish traditionalists; it invites them to deeper communion. It asks them to carry their love for Latin, chant, and sacred beauty into the Church’s present rather than using those treasures as symbols of resistance. It offers them a home within the reformed liturgy, not an exile from it. In doing so, it subtly transforms the narrative of loss into one of renewal. The Mass is not lost; the Roman Rite is not diminished; the same Christ is present upon the altar. As difficult as the transition will be for some traditionalists, to accept this path forward is an act of faith and trust.
The test is whether one stands with Peter, with the living Magisterium, with the Church as she is today. As Pope Francis taught in Traditionis Custodes, the liturgical books of Paul VI and John Paul II are “the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” To reject the reformed liturgy, he warned, is to risk rejecting the authority and unity of the Church herself.
Image: By Nheyob – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=139307585
Mike Lewis is the founding managing editor of Where Peter Is. He and Jeannie Gaffigan co-host Field Hospital, a U.S. Catholic podcast.
Popular Posts