Traditionalists often argue that Traditionis Custodes and diocesan limitations on the Tridentine Mass are unnecessary, punitive, and directed at sincere Catholics who only want to worship as their ancestors did. Some even insist there is no real cause — only hostility or cruelty from Rome and the bishops.

Recently on X, author and Catholic convert Sohrab Ahmari observed that Pope Francis “saw certain disturbing trends looming on a distant horizon and took what seemed like harsh steps to some conservative Catholics in the Anglophone world.” In response, critics like traditionalist YouTuber Brian Holdsworth claimed that such trends are “never substantiated” and are nothing more than “a lazy conspiracy theory.” Another traditionalist YouTuber, Anthony Abbate of Avoiding Babylon, asked, “What do you think is the true motivation driving these men to restrict the Traditional Liturgy?”

Many of the responses to Holdsworth’s and Abbate’s posts from traditionalists were typical (“They hate piety and true devotion,” “Satan,” “Evil. The Diabolical Disorientation spoken of by Sr. Lucia,” “Modernists, globalists and leftists,” and so on). Some non-traditionalists offered responses suggesting that the behavior and rhetoric of traditionalists were to blame. Crisis editor Eric Sammons, a traditionalist, responded, “They legitimately think the TLM (and the overall trad movement) is a threat to their conception of the Catholic Faith. And they’re right.”

Although I don’t agree with Sammons that the traditionalist movement is a “threat” to the Catholic faith, I do believe that it is a threat to the unity of the Catholic Church. As the French bishops wrote of the movement in their assessment of traditionalism in their country, “We are witnessing two worlds that do not meet.”

Is there any way to bring traditionalists back into the fold? Is there a way to accompany them towards full communion with the pope, bishops, and the overwhelming majority of the faithful? Do they even want to be in communion with the rest of us?

That’s a difficult question. The epistemic certainty of so many trads — that their understanding of the faith is the absolute truth — is remarkable. Despite being a tiny minority of the Catholic Church (and virtually nonexistent in most of the world) and having very little clout in the hierarchy, they do not lack confidence that someday their movement will take over the Church.

This polarization cannot continue indefinitely, can it? Assuming it does end, there are two possible outcomes: unity or full-blown schism. I would like to avoid schism if at all possible. But unity will not be easy to achieve.

Real Talk

I would like to respond to Holdsworth and Abbate as clearly and specifically as possible. But first, here is the general answer: the restrictions on the old Latin Mass are aimed at restoring unity in the Church.

The rest of my response follows. It is unvarnished and maybe too blunt, but I believe it to be true based on years of discussions with Church officials, Vatican insiders, bishops, theologians, priests, and other Catholic leaders who are familiar with discussions at the Church’s highest levels and have engaged the traditionalist movement directly.

Church leaders are concerned that many who belong to Latin Mass communities — including virtually all of their public spokespeople — openly reject the Second Vatican Council in whole or in part, do not respect the authority of the ordinary Magisterium of postconciliar popes, and question the legitimacy of the reformed liturgy. This is not just a rumor. Church leadership is truly concerned about these things.

It is important to be clear about what the issue is not. It is not about temperament. It is not about the bad behavior of a fringe minority or a few bad apples. The concerns are not about the young families who attend the Latin Mass or the priestly vocations that emerge from these communities. It has nothing to do with the reverence or beauty of the old liturgy. It is not even about the tone and civility with which traditionalists critique bishops or popes. It is not primarily about “liturgical peace” — and, frankly, the assumption that stability requires permanent concessions does not reflect well on the movement. Nor is it about the powerful spiritual experiences people have had at the Traditional Latin Mass. I am aware of those testimonies, and no one is denying that many have drawn good from it. That is simply not the issue.

The real reasons are neither hidden nor mysterious. There are countless concrete examples that bishops and the Holy See witness daily, both online and from reports they receive:

• Calling the pope a heretic or otherwise constantly criticizing his teachings and decisions as contrary to the Catholic faith.
• Claiming that official teachings — such as Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, or the revision to the Catechism on the death penalty — are doctrinally erroneous or incompatible with tradition.
• Accusing major papal documents of promoting Marxism, Freemasonry, or other ideological corruption (e.g., Fratelli Tutti, Laudato Si’, the Document on Human Fraternity, Dignitas Infinita).
• Attributing the liturgical reform to Masonic, Jewish, or Protestant infiltration.
• Signing petitions or open letters accusing the pope of heresy or calling on the cardinals or bishops of the world to rebuke the pope.
• Insisting that synods and synodality are part of a coordinated plot to destroy the Church or undermine its doctrine.
• Declaring that traditionalism is “true Catholicism,” while dismissing the Church after Vatican II as a different or false religion (“Novusordoism,” “NuChurch,” etc.).
• Treating Bishop Joseph Strickland, Cardinal Raymond Burke, Father James Altman, or the excommunicated Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò as martyrs for defying the pope and his teachings.
• Giving platforms to figures like Strickland, Burke, Viganò, Altman, Fr. Chad Ripperger, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Taylor Marshall, Peter Kwasniewski, and so many others — all of whom routinely undermine or reject papal authority and post-Vatican II magisterial teachings.
• Falsely accusing Indigenous Amazonian Catholics of idolatry and stirring moral panic during the Synod on the Amazon in 2019.
• Falsely accusing indigenous Canadians of paganism during the pope’s visit.
• Referring to the older liturgy as the only true “Roman Rite,” in contrast to the current liturgy used by almost the entire Church.
• Praising the founder of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was excommunicated for the “schismatic act” of illicitly ordaining bishops as a prophet or future saint.
• Deriding Pope Paul VI as unworthy of canonization or as a disastrous leader.
• The refusal of many traditionalist clergy, such as members of the FSSP, to have anything to do with the Vatican II liturgy, not even concelebrating the annual Chrism Mass with their local bishop and brother priests.
• Promoting nationalistic ideologies, praising 20^th century political movements such as Action Française or Franco’s Spanish dictatorship (and even Vichy France), as the political ideal.
• Denigrating members of other religions, such as Muslims and Jews, and minimizing the Vatican II teachings pertaining to them.
• Praising and promoting antisemitic and racist figures of the past like Fr. Denis Fahey and Fr. Charles Coughlin.
• Calling religious liberty “heretical.”
• Promoting conspiracy theories — this became especially public and widespread during the Covid pandemic.
• Subscribing to Judeo-Masonic conspiracies, including circulating antisemitic tracts like The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
• Rejecting science and promoting pseudoscience, including theories like Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism. In many cases, supporters will insist that Catholics must accept these pseudoscientific ideas as dogma.
• There are many, many more examples.

The above list of ideas are not fringe positions held by a tiny, unrepresentative sliver of traditionalists. Nearly every major public voice in the traditionalist sphere promotes at least several of these ideas. While many in the pews may not know the full extent of these attitudes, they are shaped by leaders and influencers who say these things openly. These ideas are not the traditionalist ideology, but they are commonly held by those who subscribe to it.

Time for a reality check

Some observers, like the aforementioned Eric Sammons and Michael Brendan Dougherty of the National Review, have gone as far as to conclude that what we are witnessing are, functionally, two different religions. On difficult days, I understand the sentiment. But only one of those religions remains in communion with the pope.

None of this requires anyone to agree with me. But it does require acknowledging reality.

The Church is hierarchical. Ecclesial authority is real, and it is not merely advisory. The ordinary Magisterium of the pope is official Church teaching. When a pope promulgates a teaching on faith and morals to the Church it is not merely the pope’s personal or prudential opinion. The faithful have an obligation to grant such teachings religious submission of intellect and will. They may not (as many traditionalists argue) simply reject his opinion if it’s “not infallible” or if they believe it “contradicts prior teaching.”

When the pope taught in 2018 that the death penalty is inadmissible, that became the official position of the institutional Church: the teaching was translated into multiple languages, every edition of the Catechism was revised, bishops began to teach it, and subsequent magisterial documents have made reference to it. When Pope Leo recently stated that the Church’s teaching on it “is very clear,” he was referring to Pope Francis’s 2018 teaching.

Yet on a recent episode of Catholic influencer Matt Fradd’s podcast Pints with Aquinas, which already has over 80,000 views, traditionalist author and speaker Peter Kwasniewski rejected this teaching and presented his own opinion (“the death penalty is licit”) as the true Catholic teaching. A clip of this was then posted on social media (complete with inspiring background music) and was described as “the official Catholic teaching on the death penalty.”

Here is the official Catholic teaching on the death penalty

Full video: https://t.co/MWpzZWh7Ig pic.twitter.com/426Oca7kdE

— Matt Fradd (@RealMattFradd) October 4, 2025

Likewise, some traditionalists seem to have difficulty accepting that Vatican II happened. This Council has shaped the Church in profound and serious ways in the six decades since it closed. Yet rather than accept this fact, many traditionalists will negotiate and debate about the extent to which they are obligated to accept Vatican II (saying things like, “It was just a pastoral council” or “Paul VI said it didn’t change any doctrines”). What such traditionalists don’t seem to realize is that as clever as they might think these talking points are, trying to get away with accepting as little of Vatican II as possible does not send a promising message to a Church that has been formed by the Council for generations.

Likewise, the liturgical reform was promulgated and implemented across the globe decades ago. The “Novus Ordo” is simply Mass to nearly all Roman Rite Catholics. Demand for the Tridentine Mass comes from a tiny but extremely vocal group of traditionalists that has made a negative impression on much of the hierarchy for reasons such as those listed above.

Whether one likes the post-Vatican II changes in the Church or not, the traditionalist movement does not have the power to reverse them.

We saw where the Church’s authority truly lies when Traditionis Custodes was promulgated. Although it may be a difficult fact to accept for some traditionalists, the power over the implementation of Traditionis Custodes lies with the pope, the Dicastery for Divine Worship, and — in accordance with the instructions given by the Vatican — diocesan bishops.

Opposition has potential consequences. Priests who openly resist can be sanctioned. Laity who protest may increase the resolve of their bishops to carry out the directive. Public campaigning against these norms does not persuade the hierarchy that the restrictions were a mistake; on the contrary, it reinforces the perception that traditionalism is a source of resistance and division.

Looking ahead, realistically

Prior to Pope Leo’s election, many traditionalists comforted themselves with the expectation that a future pope — perhaps someone like Cardinal Burke or Cardinal Sarah — would reverse course. That is not what happened. Pope Leo made it clear in a recent interview that he believes that celebrating the Vatican II Mass in Latin should satisfy Catholics who prefer a more classical style of worship.

He also indicated that he was aware of the divisive agenda advanced by many traditionalists, saying, “I do know that part of that issue, unfortunately, has become — again, part of a process of polarization — people have used the liturgy as an excuse for advancing other topics. It’s become a political tool, and that’s very unfortunate.” He mentioned, gently but clearly, the real concern Church leaders have with the traditionalist movement, noting that the unwillingness of some traditionalists to engage in fruitful dialogue with their bishops “means we’re into ideology now, we’re no longer into the experience of church communion.”

These are high stakes. From the Church’s perspective, including that of Popes Francis and Leo, the issues listed above (and many more) directly undermine communion. If you are a traditionalist, you likely identify strongly with some of these positions. Nevertheless, the institutional Church regards these views as problematic, incompatible with unity, and in many cases, as breaches of ecclesial obedience.

I am not attacking anyone’s sincerity or devotion. I am simply laying out, as clearly and honestly as possible, why the Tridentine Mass is being restricted and why bishops around the world are responding as they are. Even if you reject these explanations, you should at least recognize them as factors shaping the Church’s decisions. You can disagree, but you cannot pretend the reasons do not exist.

I am already anticipating the trolling and the personal attacks I will receive for writing and publishing this article. I know that much of this article will sting. But I believe it to be true. I am writing this because I think traditionalists are headed down a dangerous road and they may not understand which of their behaviors and beliefs are leading them there. The ultimate destination of this path is schism.

At minimum, consider this a data point. Treat it as opposition research if you like. But don’t ignore that these concerns are real to the people responsible for governing the Church.

Our Catholic faith teaches us that the visible source of unity in the Church is the Successor of Peter — the pope. Traditionalists, can you honestly say that you hold to that doctrine?

Make of it what you will.

Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us.

---

Image: Pope Leo meets with cardinals, May 10, 2025. Vatican Media.