In my recent article on the media coverage of the first year of Pope Leo XIV’s pontificate, I examined the letter from Cardinal Parolin to the French bishops, who met in Lourdes last week, and challenged the unlikely narrative put forward by several English-language outlets that the letter signaled that Pope Leo XIV was planning a rollback of Pope Francis’s 2021 document Traditionis Custodes. Parolin’s call for “concrete solutions that will generously include those sincerely attached to the Vetus Ordo, while respecting the orientations established by the Second Vatican Council” was interpreted by some as recommending wider access to the Tridentine Mass (the Latin pre-Vatican II liturgy).
Now, reporting from the French Catholic newspaper La Croix (the original article is behind a paywall; I am relying on an English translation posted on the traditionalist blog Rorate Caeli) on the French bishops’ spring plenary assembly in Lourdes gives us a much clearer picture of how the bishops are engaging that invitation. Rather than treating the discussion as evidence of an impending reversal of Traditionis Custodes or a return to the framework of Summorum Pontificum, the French bishops discussed concrete incremental reforms that were aimed at bringing the Church closer to liturgical unity. Their ideas and proposals may help frame the discussion on liturgy that will take place at the consistory of cardinals to be held this June in Rome.
The La Croix report reveals important context to the subject. According to the paper’s sources, Pope Leo personally expressed to Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline (Archbishop of Marseille and president of the French bishops’ conference) during the January consistory his wish that Aveline explore avenues for resolving the tensions surrounding the Tridentine liturgy. “Leo XIV is concerned about unity. He is extremely interested in the question and asked us to think something through,” one bishop confirmed to La Croix. The Parolin letter was part of this ongoing conversation between Leo and the French episcopate. English-language news outlets did not discuss this context.
The most encouraging element of the La Croix report is the bishops’ agreement on the nature of the problem. It is not simply a matter of liturgical sensibilities. As the paper puts it, “all the bishops broadly share the same diagnosis: the Mass is not, in reality, the central issue.” According to one bishop, behind the liturgical question, they see “problems of doctrine and ecclesiology — the question of acceptance of Vatican II.” Bishop Olivier de Cagny of Évreux, who helped lead the plenary session on liturgy, observed that “it is the first time I have heard so clearly that the subject must be addressed at a theological level, and not merely in a pastoral and emotional way.”
This is a fundamentally different framing from the one offered by the Pillar and the Catholic Herald, which treated the liturgical question as a matter of access to a rite. The French bishops are saying that the deeper issue is ecclesiological: whether communities attached to the older liturgy accept the authority of the Second Vatican Council and participate in the life of the local Church. That diagnosis is consistent with what the bishops reported in their 2020 survey synthesis, which described “two worlds that do not meet.”
The Proposals
According to La Croix, the French bishops generally fell into two camps: those who want Leo to firmly uphold the norms established by Pope Francis, and those who “are open to accommodations, but only under certain conditions.” Neither group is calling for a “rollback” of Traditionis Custodes, and there appears to be general agreement among the French bishops on the ultimate goal: liturgical and ecclesial unity in alignment with Vatican II.
The specific proposals of the latter group, according to La Croix, reflect this orientation. In a sense, they go beyond Traditionis Custodes, because rather than simply restricting access to the older Mass, they propose conditions that would require traditionalist communities to move closer to the reformed liturgy and make real concessions in exchange for any continued accommodation.
La Croix reports several specific conditions this group envisions. Communities attached to the older Mass would be expected to adopt the readings and calendar of the reformed Missal. Other sacraments — baptism, marriage, and confirmation — would be celebrated in the post-conciliar rite, though Latin could still be used. Diocesan bishops would resume direct oversight, and priests would no longer be permitted to refuse outright to celebrate the reformed liturgy. The bishops described this kind of categorical refusal as “exclusivism” and called it “unacceptable,” arguing that it contradicts the vision of “mutual enrichment” that Benedict XVI articulated alongside Summorum Pontificum.
This is something Pope Benedict was explicit about in his letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum, in which he wrote, “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.” Unfortunately, this part of Benedict’s vision was largely ignored in traditionalist communities.
The Fraternity of Saint Peter drew particular attention. According to La Croix, bishops voiced frustration that FSSP priests typically decline to concelebrate at the diocesan Chrism Mass, and described a perceived “double standard”: while traditionalist communities expect broad access to the older liturgy, some of their seminaries reportedly threaten to expel students who celebrate or concelebrate the reformed Mass. One bishop lamented that these young priests “have a great missionary zeal and could help us in our dioceses if they agreed to celebrate in both rites.”
None of this presents a move toward simple liberalization or restoration of broad permissions for the old rite. In fact, the bishops’ proposals would ask more of traditionalist communities than the current framework does — not less. The Parolin letter’s language of “generous inclusion” fits this context: it signals pastoral openness from bishops, but it is paired with an expectation that traditionalist communities will participate fully in the life of the local Church rather than maintaining parallel ecclesial structures. As Bishop de Cagny put it, the ultimate goal is “a single rite — which allows everyone, whatever their sensibility, to coexist in a common prayer.”
La Croix also reports that the bishops recognize the status quo is unsustainable. Because Francis himself granted exemptions to various traditionalist communities after issuing Traditionis Custodes, the motu proprio has become, in the words of one bishop, “difficult to apply.” A papal clarification, they believe, is inevitable. This honest assessment acknowledges that further is likely to come.
Pope Leo clearly recognizes that the French bishops have a grasp on the complexities of the problem. By contrast, in the US, bishops frequently denied the theological and ecclesial problems in the traditionalist movement and sought to exempt their dioceses from applying the provisions of Traditionis Custodes. By asking the French bishops to help develop concrete proposals ahead of the June consistory, he has given them a meaningful voice in shaping whatever comes next.
The direction emerging from Lourdes looks nothing like the narrative that English-language outlets have been constructing, which I discussed in my last article. The French bishops are not moving toward the restoration of broad permissions for the older liturgy. The direction they are exploring is one in which any continued accommodation would require serious concessions from traditionalist communities: adopting the reformed readings, celebrating the other sacraments according to the post-conciliar rite, accepting diocesan oversight, and ending the categorical refusal to celebrate the reformed Mass. These are terms that many traditionalist communities have so far been unwilling to accept — and yet this may be the direction the Church is heading.
Image: Vatican Media.
Mike Lewis is the founding managing editor of Where Peter Is. In addition to his work for the site, his writing has appeared in America Magazine, National Catholic Reporter, US Catholic, The Irish Catholic, Catholic Outlook, The Synodal Times, and other Catholic publications. He has been quoted in The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, The New York Post, and other mainstream outlets on Catholic affairs. He previously co-hosted the Field Hospital podcast with Jeannie Gaffigan and The Debrief podcast. Before founding Where Peter Is, he worked in communications at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic Climate Covenant. He is married with four children.
Popular Posts