Defending the Traditional Latin Mass: A Rebuttal to Recent Criticisms

Introduction

A recent commentary claimed that supporters of the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) are clinging to a “harmful, discarnate ideology” that divides the Church. It alleged that Pope Francis’s 2021 motu proprio Traditionis Custodes (TC) – which severely restricted the older Latin liturgy – was justified by survey results and the need to quell division. As a faithful Catholic who loves the TLM, I fundamentally disagree. The evidence (including newly leaked Vatican documents) shows that Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum (SP) of 2007, which liberalized the TLM, brought many positive fruits and fostered liturgical peace, not division. In this comprehensive rebuttal, I will refute the claims against the TLM from all angles – historical, pastoral, and factual – using solid references to demonstrate that these criticisms are misguided and unsupported by the data.

Summorum Pontificum’s Fruits and Episcopal Feedback

Pope Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum in 2007 to allow broader celebration of the 1962 Latin Mass, calling it the “Extraordinary Form” of the Roman Rite alongside the usual post-Vatican II Mass (the “Ordinary Form”). His aim was to reconcile those attached to the old liturgy with the Church and promote “the equal dignity of the two forms of the same Roman Rite,” thereby creating “genuine liturgical peace” . By most accounts, SP succeeded in this aim:

• Leaked Vatican Report – Positive Feedback: On July 1, 2025, veteran Vatican journalist Diane Montagna published a leaked “Overall Assessment” report by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) summarizing a 2020 global survey of bishops on Summorum Pontificum. According to this official assessment (which was given to Pope Francis in early 2021), “the majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire… ultimately express satisfaction with [Summorum Pontificum].” In dioceses where the older Mass was generously implemented “the situation has become completely pacified” . In fact, most bishops warned that any new restrictions on the TLM would “cause more harm than good”: the report says “any change — whether by suppressing or weakening Summorum Pontificum — would seriously damage the life of the Church, as it would recreate the tensions that the document had helped to resolve.” . One example cited is the Archbishop of Milan’s warning that revoking SP’s provisions would lead to “new waves of dissent and resentment” among the faithful . The CDF assessment explicitly recommended “it is better to continue along the path already undertaken, without causing further upheaval.”
• “Good Fruit” from the TLM: Far from sowing discord, many bishops observed that Summorum Pontificum brought positive fruits. Numerous dioceses formed stable Latin Mass communities – often personal parishes – where all sacraments are offered in the traditional rite, and these communities have been pastorally fruitful . The leaked report notes a “constant observation made by the bishops”: younger people and converts are especially drawn to the old liturgy, finding in it a sacredness and solemnity that deeply touches their souls . Amid a secular, noisy world, many Catholics rediscovered silence, reverence, sacred music, and solid preaching through the TLM . Rather than splitting the Church, the availability of the Latin Mass often attracted people into the Church. Indeed, the report states that young people were being drawn into the Catholic Church through this older form of the liturgy, a point which Traditionis Custodes inexplicably ignored .
• Vocations and Growth: Bishops around the world reported an increase in priestly vocations thanks to communities devoted to the traditional liturgy . In various countries (English-, French-, Spanish-, and Portuguese-speaking regions are noted), seminaries run by the Ecclesia Dei institutes (traditional priestly societies in full communion with Rome) are thriving, even attracting seminarians who might otherwise join a diocesan seminary . The CDF report acknowledged this trend with some concern – not because the vocations were deficient, but because many young men are choosing traditional orders, perhaps indicating something lacking in the diocesan liturgical life. This trend highlights that the TLM, rather than harming the Church, has been a seedbed for zealous young clergy and committed laity.
• “Equal Dignity” in Practice: In many places, Summorum Pontificum fostered a peaceful coexistence between the old and new forms of Mass. In the United States, for example, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco observed that SP “largely put an end to the liturgy wars in the lived experience” of the Church . When parishioners who prefer the TLM are welcomed as fellow Catholics of equal dignity, they are not in “competition” with those who attend the Novus Ordo. In fact, as Pope Benedict predicted, having both forms available can lead to “mutual enrichment”: many parishes that offer a Latin Mass alongside reverent Novus Ordo Masses have found that each form influences the other, raising the overall sense of reverence and devotion . Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Benedict XVI) hoped for this very effect – that in time the two forms would converge and strengthen each other. “Interior reconciliation” was his goal, not exacerbating division . By most measures, SP was achieving that interior reconciliation at the grassroots level.

In summary, the official data from the bishops’ survey strongly affirmed the value of Summorum Pontificum. The majority of bishops did not report chaos or division in their dioceses due to the TLM; on the contrary, most were satisfied and saw no need for restrictive changes . The portrayal of Summorum Pontificum as a failed experiment is flatly contradicted by the Church’s own bishops in the field.

Was Traditionis Custodes Justified?

If Summorum Pontificum was working well overall, why did Pope Francis issue Traditionis Custodes in July 2021 to reverse it? The stated rationale in Francis’s letter to bishops was that widening access to the old Mass had unfortunately been “exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce divergences, and encourage disagreements… exposing [the Church] to the peril of division.” He wrote that the 2020 survey of bishops “revealed a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene.” He even addressed the bishops saying, “Responding to your requests, I take the firm decision to abrogate” the previous norms (i.e., Summorum Pontificum) . In effect, Pope Francis framed Traditionis Custodes as something the world’s bishops asked for in order to preserve unity .

However, we now know this is a deeply problematic narrative:

• Contradiction with Survey Data: The leaked CDF assessment directly contradicts Pope Francis’s implication that most bishops wanted a clampdown on the TLM. In reality, “the majority of bishops… stated that making legislative changes to Summorum Pontificum would cause more harm than good.” Many bishops explicitly begged that the status quo not be upset, fearing renewed strife if the TLM was suppressed . It appears Pope Francis’s “intervention” was not in line with the majority of his bishops’ counsel. Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni, when asked about the leak, did not deny the document’s authenticity and in fact confirmed it was part of the material used in the decision – but he claimed it was “very partial and incomplete” and that other inputs were considered . This tacit admission reveals that Traditionis Custodes was not simply a response to an overwhelming episcopal mandate (since no such mandate emerges from the data). Rather, other factors or “subsequent internal consultations” carried greater weight .
• Did Pope Francis Mislead? Many observers – both supporters and critics of TC – have concluded that the Pope’s justification misrepresented the situation. Joseph Shaw, head of the UK Latin Mass Society, said the new leaks prove the need for Pope (now Leo XIV) to address the issue, as it appears the previous pontificate’s actions were based on a false premise . Traditional Catholic writers were more blunt, with some saying the evidence shows “Pope Francis deceived the faithful when issuing Traditionis Custodes” (to quote one commentator) . While such language is strong, it reflects a sense of betrayal felt by those who knew anecdotally that many bishops and cardinals had spoken favorably of the TLM (or at least neutrally) prior to 2021. Indeed, prior to TC, several bishops publicly attested that the old Mass was not a pastoral problem in their dioceses and that they saw no need for new restrictions – only to have Rome abruptly impose them. This disconnect naturally led to questions about the true motives behind Traditionis Custodes.
• Francis’s Words vs. Reality: Defenders of Pope Francis argue that he never said the decision was solely based on the survey. It’s true that he mentioned it was one factor “considered in light of experience” . However, the emphasis he placed on the survey results (“persuaded me of the need to intervene”) and on answering bishops’ requests gave a clear impression that he was acting on the consensus of the episcopate . The leaked report shows there was no such consensus for suppression – in fact quite the opposite . Thus, critics have a valid point that the rationale for TC was at best incomplete, at worst misleading. If the Pope had other reasons (such as personal conviction or input from certain advisers) for reversing SP, those were not clearly stated in the documents promulgating TC, which instead highlighted supposed unity concerns coming from the bishops.
• Omitted Evidence: Notably, the 224-page CDF report given to Pope Francis in 2021 remains secret, aside from the 14 pages now leaked. It likely contains detailed findings (by continent and country) and a collection of hundreds of bishops’ actual responses . The leaked portion is the “Overall Assessment” and a curated “Collection of Quotations” from various dioceses . Some have pointed out that this selection of quotes appears skewed towards TLM-friendly responses (e.g., multiple quotes from traditionally-friendly dioceses like San Francisco and Lourdes) , while ignoring strongly critical feedback (e.g., the French bishops’ conference’s report) . If true, one might question whether the CDF officials compiling it were too favorable to the TLM. But this is speculation – without the full report, we cannot know the proportions of positive vs. negative responses. What we do know is that the Pope chose to highlight the negative (talk of division and “exploitation” of Benedict’s concessions ) and virtually ignored the positive fruits (youth, vocations, liturgical peace) which his own Congregation documented . For many, this one-sided approach undermines the credibility of Traditionis Custodes’ justification.

In light of the above, the argument that “Pope Francis was right to rescind Summorum Pontificum because the bishops were unhappy and the TLM was causing division” simply does not hold water. The majority of bishops were not unhappy – they largely favored keeping Benedict’s policy – and the division cited was largely anecdotal and localized, often caused by a handful of extremists or by bishops who were hostile to the old Mass in the first place . To punish thousands of good Catholics worldwide for that is akin to using a sledgehammer where careful pastoral guidance was needed. Even Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, a high-ranking CDF official who supported Pope Francis’s decision, admitted in 2021 that the survey itself was “not the decisive factor” but merely “occasioned” the move – the real motive was the perception of a deeper “betrayal” of Benedict’s intentions by traditionalists . We will examine that claim next.

Addressing the “Discarnate Ideology” Canard

Critics of the Traditional Latin Mass often shift the focus from the liturgy itself to the people and attitudes associated with it. The article in question painted “traditionalists” as adherents of a toxic, discarnate ideology – essentially accusing them of rigid fundamentalism, disobedience to Vatican II, spiritual pride, and even “replacing love of God and neighbor with harsh judgment and threats of hell.” These are sweeping generalizations that do not reflect the reality of most TLM devotees. Let’s unpack this:

• Faithful, Not Fanatics: The overwhelming majority of Catholics who attend the TLM are ordinary faithful who love Jesus Christ, accept the authority of the Pope and the Second Vatican Council, and simply desire the reverence and beauty of the older form of Mass. It is unjust to tar them all with the brush of a few provocateurs. Yes, there are extremists at the fringe (as there are in any movement), but to claim the entire TLM community is defined by an “ideology” outside the Gospel is demonstrably false. In fact, traditional Latin Mass communities are often notable for their fervent devotion – these are people who frequently have large families, teach their children the catechism, attend Eucharistic adoration, go to confession regularly, and are deeply involved in works of charity. Nothing about that is against “love of God and neighbor.” The CDF’s own leaked report notably did not warn of any doctrinal deviation among these faithful; rather it said many bishops found TLM groups to be devout and appreciative of good liturgical formation .
• No, the Latin Mass is Not a Parallel Church: Pope Francis and others have expressed concern that the TLM could be a rallying point for rejecting Vatican II or the legitimacy of the reformed liturgy. But the communities permitted under Summorum Pontificum (and the 1988 Ecclesia Dei framework before that) by definition accept the Pope and Council. Groups that outright reject Vatican II or the Novus Ordo – such as sedevacantists or the schismatic SSPX – operate outside the SP system anyway. It is unfair to conflate loyal Catholics attached to the old Mass with those disloyal elements. In fact, Cardinal Gerhard Müller (former Prefect of the CDF) highlighted this disparity: “Nobody can call himself a Catholic who … wants to go back behind Vatican II,” he affirmed , yet he immediately noted that many “progressivist” dissenters openly contradict Vatican II with impunity in Germany and elsewhere . He then questioned why the response to those true threats to unity has been so “modest,” while the Pope’s response to a small traditionalist minority was so “harsh.” This double standard suggests that something other than objective fidelity to Vatican II is driving the crackdown on the TLM.
• Mischaracterizing the TLM Movement: The claim that traditional Catholic worship is part of a “dangerous ideology” is highly exaggerated rhetoric. What is this ideology? If it means an attachment to the Church’s traditional doctrines and reverent worship, that’s hardly dangerous – in fact, it’s quintessentially Catholic. If it refers to the attitude of some who question certain ambiguities of post-Vatican II reforms, that is not an “ideology” so much as a theological opinion or pastoral concern (one often shared by saints and scholars). The article’s author specifically decried a movement that “paints Jesus as wrathful” and is full of “harsh judgment.” But anyone who actually spends time in TLM parishes will encounter catechesis on God’s mercy, active charitable works, and many joyful young families. The caricature of TLM communities as doom-and-gloom rigorists is false – indeed, joy is a common trait among those who have discovered the traditional Mass, precisely because they find in it a profound encounter with the Lord’s grace. The leaked survey quotes show many bishops noted positive spiritual fruits among faithful who attend the old Mass .
• Abuses vs. Tradition: Ironically, while trad communities are accused of disunity, some of the gravest liturgical abuses and deviations from doctrine in the Church today come from the opposite direction. Cardinal Müller pointed out the “paganization of the Catholic liturgy” in some quarters – e.g., incorporating New Age or secular ideologies into worship (he specifically mentioned the infamous “Pachamama” episode during the Amazon Synod) – as a far more serious assault on true Catholic unity than a few pockets of Latin Mass-goers. He lamented that certain bishops tolerate or even promote heterodoxy (e.g., in Germany’s Synodal Path) while showing zero patience for Catholics attached to the old rite . In his words, it’s like a fire brigade ignoring a burning house (massive doctrinal dissent) to focus on a small shed (a minority of traditionalists) . This comparison underscores how disproportionate the reaction to the TLM has been. The vast majority of TLM attendees are not heretics, schismatics, or rebels – they simply prefer the older form of worship, which was the norm for centuries. Meanwhile, open theological rebellion (which truly does threaten unity in faith) often goes unchecked. Unity cannot be achieved by targeting the wrong problem.
• Shepherds, not Enforcers: One of the most compelling critiques of Traditionis Custodes came from Cardinal Müller, who said the document’s “clear intent is to condemn the Extraordinary Form to extinction in the long run.” He noted that “without the slightest empathy” the motu proprio ignored the deeply held spiritual needs of many faithful (often youth) and “instead of appreciating the smell of the sheep, the shepherd here hits them hard with his crook.” This imagery is powerful. It reminds us that Church authority exists to nurture and guide souls, not to bludgeon them. If some traditionalist Catholics have expressed anger or hurt after TC, it is largely because they felt betrayed and unjustly punished. These sentiments don’t arise in a vacuum – they are the result of real pastoral pain. By contrast, Summorum Pontificum was an act of a kindly pastor, Pope Benedict, who sought to “make room for all that is good” in the Church and reconcile estranged brethren. The fruits of that kindness were visible in increased peace and unity . The fruits of harshness, sadly, have been increased resentment and polarization.

In short, the broad-brush vilification of the “TLM movement” as an extremist ideology is not only unfair, it’s unsupported by evidence. Yes, Pope Francis and others have heard of troubling attitudes from some self-styled “traditionalists” – but those represent a small fringe, not the mainstream of those who simply love the old Mass. It is noteworthy that the CDF’s leaked assessment did not list doctrinal heterodoxy or schismatic behavior as common problems among respondents; instead, it praised regions where bishops and traditionalist clergy worked together harmoniously . The real solution to the fringe extremism that does exist is pastoral engagement and sound teaching, not abolishing the traditional liturgy for everyone. As Archbishop Cordileone wisely wrote, “The sense of ruptured unity in the liturgy cannot be healed by simply imposing a new set of rules from above.” Unity grows from mutual understanding and “allowing these two expressions of the same Rite to influence each other… ‘mutually enriching’” the Church . Cordileone flatly said “it is a mistake to try to sequester off those who are devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass, as if they were a danger to the faith of the vast majority of their fellow Catholics.” I couldn’t agree more. Treating faithful TLM adherents as a danger or enemy is a profound error that itself causes hurt and division.

Unity Through Inclusion, Not Suppression

At the heart of this debate is a fundamental question: How should the Church achieve unity in worship? Is it by forcefully imposing uniformity – even at the cost of alienating a segment of the faithful – or by patiently fostering communion among diverse expressions of Catholic worship? History and recent experience both point to the latter.

• Benedict XVI’s Vision of Peaceful Coexistence: Summorum Pontificum was grounded in the insight that the ancient and modern forms of the Roman Rite could coexist peacefully and even enrich one another. Pope Benedict explicitly affirmed that the 1962 Missal was never juridically abrogated and that what was holy for prior generations remains holy for us . By lifting restrictions on the TLM, he trusted that goodwill on both sides would lead to healing. Indeed, for about 14 years (2007–2021), this seemed to be working: those attached to the old Mass felt acknowledged and at home in the Church, while those attached to the new Mass were scarcely affected in their day-to-day worship (the Novus Ordo remained absolutely dominant, and still is). In many dioceses, bishops reported no conflict at all between TLM communities and others – as the CDF summary says, “in places where the clergy have closely cooperated with the bishop, the situation has become completely pacified.” Real “liturgical peace” was observable. One U.S. bishop noted that Benedict’s policy “put an end to the liturgy wars” on the ground . This is a model of unity-through-inclusion: everyone obeys the same faith and moral law, but there is leeway in liturgical practice for legitimate diversity. The early Church, after all, had various liturgical traditions (Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Byzantine, etc.) coexisting in unity; even today, Eastern Rite Catholics and Latin Rite Catholics are fully united without using the same liturgy. Uniformity has never been the guarantor of unity in the Catholic Church – charity and fidelity have.
• Traditionis Custodes and Renewed Division: By contrast, the abrupt suppression of much of what Summorum Pontificum allowed has led to turmoil and division. The CDF’s leaked report predicted this would happen if SP were revoked: it foresaw “new waves of dissent and resentment” and urged that “any change… would seriously damage the life of the Church” by reigniting tensions . Sadly, this was borne out. Since Traditionis Custodes was issued, we have seen:
  • Faithful marginalized: In many dioceses, devout Catholics who had attended the Latin Mass for years (with full Church approval) suddenly found their parishes closed or Mass locations moved to inconvenient times and places. Some dioceses even banned the TLM on Easter and Christmas, which to those communities felt like a cruel spiritual starvation. This abrupt about-face left many feeling like second-class Catholics.
  • Increased antagonism: Rather than “pacify,” TC has tended to embitter the discourse. Some previously moderate traditional Catholics, feeling betrayed, grew more vocal in their criticisms of Church authorities – exactly the opposite of the obedience TC supposedly desired. On the other side, some who dislike the TLM became triumphalistic about its suppression. The mutual trust that Benedict’s approach had nurtured was severely damaged. In plain terms, TC made the “liturgy wars” flare up again .
  • Schismatic temptations: A tragic consequence of the crackdown is that a small number of disaffected traditionalists did drift toward schismatic groups (like the SSPX) or at least into a kind of internal exile. While the vast majority have remained loyal (though hurt), it is undeniable that driving the old Mass out of normal parish life risks pushing some people out of the Church’s visible structure. Even one soul lost to schism is too high a price for a policy that was not pastorally necessary – especially when that policy was justified by concerns about unity!
• Unity vs. Uniformity: True Catholic unity is unity in faith, charity, and obedience to legitimate authority – it is not mere uniformity of externals. As Cardinal Müller eloquently stated, unity “does not require sterile uniformity in the external liturgical form, as if the Church were like one of the international hotel chains with their homogeneous design.” The push to eliminate the old rite in favor of one single expression of the Roman Rite misunderstands the catholicity (universality) of the Church. We can have multiple forms of the liturgy (as we did for centuries) and still be perfectly one in the essentials. Enforcing one form at the expense of a venerable tradition cherished by many faithful looks less like fostering unity and more like demanding absolute conformity. This approach has never been the Catholic way – even the post-Vatican II liturgical reform allowed for different usages and rites.
• Pastoral Solutions Exist: If certain traditionalist groups or individuals fell into problematic attitudes (e.g. rejecting the pope’s authority or Vatican II), the answer was never to ban their form of Mass for everyone. Pastoral problems require pastoral solutions: dialogue, correction of errors, discipline for those who truly refuse communion with the Church, while sparing the innocent. Traditionis Custodes took a blunt canonical approach to what was really an issue of pastoral unity. Punishing all priests and laity who love the TLM (the vast majority of whom were not sowing division) for the sake of a troublesome minority is a textbook case of “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.” A more discerning approach – enforcing the existing conditions of SP (which required bishops to ensure the groups accepted Vatican II and the validity of the new Mass) – would have isolated the real troublemakers without destroying the goodwill built up by 14 years of peace.

In essence, unity in the Church is best preserved by charity and inclusivity, not by draconian suppression. Pope Benedict’s model was to trust his bishops and priests to integrate the old Mass in a way that served the faithful and maintained communion. The evidence shows that trust was largely rewarded with positive results . The few problems that existed could have been dealt with case-by-case. Unfortunately, Pope Francis’s decision to reverse course has taught us a hard lesson: you cannot bludgeon people into unity – you will only succeed in fracturing it further.

The 2020 Survey: What Really Happened?

The controversy over the leaked CDF documents also raises questions about how the decision to impose Traditionis Custodes was reached. The long commentary referenced by the prompt suggests that maybe the leaked “Overall Assessment” was too favorable to the TLM and that Pope Francis relied on other input (perhaps a “second report” or private recommendations) to justify restrictions. Let’s examine this scenario:

• A Tale of Two Reports: According to Diane Montagna (speaking in late 2021), after the 2020 survey of bishops was completed, CDF superiors commissioned a second analysis of the data, perhaps fearing that the initial report “reflected the feedback of the bishops” too straightforwardly (and was thus largely positive) . This alleged second report, written by an official in the doctrinal section, may have offered a more critical take – focusing on potential doctrinal and ecclesiological concerns with the “traditionalist movement.” Montagna did not have a copy of that, but she suspected Traditionis Custodes aligns more with the second (more negative) report than with the first (official summary) . Now, Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni essentially confirmed that multiple inputs fed the process: he said the consultation “was supported by other documentation and other reserved reports” considered by the CDF and Pope . In plainer terms, the leaked pro-TLM assessment was not the only voice in the room. This means the Pope likely heard conflicting interpretations of the situation – one saying “all is mostly well, no need for drastic change,” and another saying “there are hidden problems, we need to act.” He clearly chose to follow the latter view.
• Bias and Prejudice at Play: What might have been in that more negative analysis? Montagna gives a clue by recounting a January 2020 plenary meeting of the CDF’s cardinals . It appears that several high-ranking cardinals (she names Cardinal Parolin, Cardinal Ouellet, Cardinal Versaldi, among others ) pushed a narrative that the traditionalist groups were problematic. Shockingly, one cardinal even described the thousands of young people attracted to the TLM (e.g., 13,000 attended the Chartres pilgrimage in France that year) as mostly having “psychological and sociological problems.” Another complained that traditionalist clergy “participate [in the Church] without concelebrating” (a reference to the fact that many TLM priests prefer not to concelebrate Mass, which is actually a matter of personal devotion and permissible choice) and insisted on a “concrete sign of communion” as if these priests and faithful were suspect . These comments exude a clear bias: rather than trying to understand why the youth are drawn to tradition or why a priest might have conscientious reasons to celebrate individually, they pathologized and villainized them. If the second report was written under the influence of such prelates, it likely magnified the negatives – portraying the TLM communities as hotbeds of intransigence that refuse “the validity of the Mass of Paul VI” (though in reality, the Ecclesia Dei institutes and most TLM attendees do accept the new Mass as valid, they simply have a preference for the old).
• Selective Omission: The leaked “Quotations Collection” that Montagna provided, while insightful, clearly omitted input from bishops known to have negative experiences with traditionalist groups (e.g., no quotes from the French or Brazilian bishops’ conferences, which have public histories of tension) . It’s possible the person who compiled that collection had a “rose-tinted” view and wanted to highlight only the supportive feedback. But think about this: if Summorum Pontificum were truly causing widespread havoc, wouldn’t the majority of responses have reflected that? Instead, someone trying to present the case for Summorum Pontificum had to reach a bit (even quoting some dioceses multiple times ). This suggests that the negative feedback was limited to certain regions or a minority of bishops. Indeed, Montagna notes that Spanish-speaking bishops generally showed “little interest” (neither strong support nor opposition) and Italian bishops in general didn’t value the old Mass much . In other words, in many places the TLM was a non-issue; in some it was cherished; in others it was disfavored. That calls for a nuanced, localized response, not a blanket decree. Unfortunately, the “partisan” dynamics on both sides – a pro-TLM report compiled by supporters, and an anti-TLM counter-report driven by opponents – set the stage for a one-size-fits-all edict from Rome. This tug-of-war behind the scenes is important context for understanding why Traditionis Custodes happened, but it does not vindicate the outcome. If anything, it shows the decision was made under a cloud of internal politics and prejudices, rather than through a transparent process truly reflecting the sensus fidelium.
• Reality Check – Where Are the Problems?: The commentary we are refuting claimed that a “dangerous, harmful, spiritually abusive ideology” is “pervasive in the traditionalist movement.” If that were so, one would expect to find widespread reports from bishops detailing things like explicit rejection of the Pope, promotion of schism, heretical ideas, etc., in TLM communities. But do we see that? The French bishops’ conference’s response (which was not quoted in the leak but is known from other reporting) expressed concerns that some French traditionalist groups reject aspects of Vatican II or have an “ideology of exceptionalism.” There have indeed been turf wars in France with some extremist groups (e.g., related to the Society of St. Pius X or Tradition, Family, and Property in Brazil) . However, these situations are not the norm everywhere – they are regional. In the United States, for example, most diocesan bishops who have TLM communities (especially those staffed by Fraternity of St. Peter or Institute of Christ the King priests) have attested that those communities are faithful and not causing trouble. For instance, Bishop Steven Lopes (who is not a “traditionalist” himself) noted that prior to TC, “we seemed to have come to a peaceful coexistence” with the two forms, and that with all the crises in the Church, focusing on crushing the old Mass is misplaced . Likewise, Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland has praised the zeal and orthodoxy of the young families at the Latin Mass, while also celebrating both forms himself – a model of integration. The takeaway is that where there is charity and sound pastoring, the TLM is not a problem. It becomes a “problem” only in the eyes of those who already view it through suspicion or ideological lenses.

To sum up this section: The process leading to Traditionis Custodes was marked by conflicting narratives. The actual survey data (to the extent we’ve seen it) leans towards Summorum Pontificum having positive effects overall , but some influential churchmen – nursing old fears about “Tridentine” Catholics – pushed a different story. Pope Francis, trusting those voices, acted to “put out a fire.” But many believe he was misinformed about the size and nature of that fire. Yes, there are some sparks of dissent among traditionalists, but there are also raging fires of dissent elsewhere (which got comparatively little papal attention). By focusing on the former, the Vatican tragically may have thrown gasoline rather than water. Going forward, it’s crucial for Church authorities to approach this issue with clear eyes and without prejudice: the TLM should be seen as a pastoral opportunity, not a threat. Any genuine problems can and should be addressed specifically, not by axing an entire liturgical heritage.

Fruits of the Traditional Latin Mass

A core argument in defense of Summorum Pontificum is simply this: “By their fruits you shall know them.” What are the fruits of the Traditional Latin Mass in the Church today? We’ve already mentioned several, but they bear emphasizing, as they directly refute the notion that the TLM yields bad fruit.

• Deepened Reverence and Devotion: Time and again, Catholics testify that discovering the traditional Mass reinvigorated their faith. The atmosphere of reverence – kneeling for Holy Communion on the tongue, periods of sacred silence, the palpable focus on the sacrificial nature of the Mass – can jolt people out of a casual or distracted approach to worship. Converts from secularism or Protestantism have been moved by the sense that “God is truly present here”. These are subjective experiences, yes, but widely attested. It aligns with the bishops’ observations in the survey: converts and young people “are drawn by the sacredness, seriousness, and solemnity of the liturgy… the rediscovery of silence… and the beauty of liturgical chant” . Such things increase, not decrease, one’s love of God. They do not make one judgmental; they make one humble before the Mystery of Faith.
• Stronger Catholic Identity: Sociological data (from sources like Franciscan University studies and the Latin Mass communities’ own surveys) often show that TLM attendees have a high rate of adherence to core Catholic beliefs (e.g. the Real Presence, the sanctity of marriage) and practices (large families, frequent confession, etc.). This isn’t to idolize traditionalists as “better Catholics,” but it indicates that the old liturgy, with its robust expressions of doctrine, tends to form committed believers. One telling statistic: a recent survey found Latin Mass attendees were much less likely to leave the Church than average Catholics – in an age when youth retention is abysmal, this is huge. In fact, in a 2023 survey, half of U.S. Catholics polled said they would be interested in attending a Latin Mass if it were available . And among those who do attend, a disproportionate number are young adults under 45 (44% of regular TLM-goers were under 45, versus 20% for typical parishes) . This belies the claim that the TLM is just for nostalgic old folks – it is very much a phenomenon of the new generations seeking roots. The fruit here is a renewed interest in the Church’s heritage among people who might otherwise be secular.
• Vocational Boom: We mentioned the surge in priestly and religious vocations from traditional communities . Consider the average age and number of men in formation in, say, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) or Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest – they are flourishing while many diocesan seminaries languish half-empty. These priests will serve all Catholics (many bi-ritual, also saying the Novus Ordo when needed), and they bring with them a solid formation in Thomistic theology and classic spirituality. This is a gift to the whole Church. Women’s religious orders attached to the traditional liturgy (like certain Dominican, Carmelite, Benedictine communities) are likewise attracting young vocations. It’s hard to see how an “evil ideology” could produce an increase in men and women joyfully giving their lives to Christ. On the contrary, “you will know them by their fruits” – and the fruits look a lot like faith, hope, and charity in action.
• Evangelization and Conversion: Some critics argue the TLM appeals only to already devout Catholics, not the “marginalized” or non-Catholics. But there are documented cases of people converting to Catholicism because of the beauty of the Latin Mass. In our age, beauty is a powerful evangelizer. A well-known example is St. John Henry Newman, who was moved in part by the beauty and depth of Catholic liturgy (in his day, the only Mass was the traditional one). Today’s seekers, weary of relativism and banality, can find in the TLM a doorway to transcendent truth. Bishops in the survey noted that the older liturgy was bringing people into the Church . That is an evangelical fruit no sincere Catholic should dismiss.
• Holiness and Virtue: Ultimately, the most important fruit is holiness. Does attending the TLM help people become saints? While sanctity can be found in every rite and form (of course!), many spiritual directors will attest that those who opt for the traditional Mass often deepen their prayer lives. The extensive use of Scripture, the demanding fast (traditional Catholics often keep the pre-Vatican II Eucharistic fast of 12 or 3 hours, even though not required), the emphasis on frequent confession and Our Lady’s intercession – all these facets cultivate virtue. Again, none of this is to claim superiority or to downplay the valid paths to holiness in the Novus Ordo. It is simply to rebut the notion that the TLM is “harmful to souls.” The opposite is evidently true for those who are nourished by it. As with any spiritual path, if someone in the traditional Mass world falls into pride or a partisan mentality, that is a failing to be corrected – but it is not inherent to the rite. Plenty of people at Novus Ordo Masses also struggle with pride or judgmentalism (just witness the contempt sometimes shown toward “trads”). Sin is a universal constant; the liturgy is meant to sanctify us and, by many accounts, the ancient rite does this effectively for those who attend with an open heart.

In summary, the fruits of the Traditional Latin Mass are overwhelmingly positive in the lives of believers. The TLM’s critics rarely acknowledge these fruits; they focus on a few poisonous weeds (real or imagined) and then propose to scorch the entire garden. But we must keep perspective. The presence of some weeds does not negate the good harvest that the Lord is raising up. Jesus’ parable of the wheat and tares counsels patience – let them grow together until harvest, lest you uproot the wheat too【Matthew 13:29-30】. By that logic, even if one thinks some “tares” exist among Latin Mass adherents, you would still not rashly tear out the TLM because you’d certainly uproot much good wheat with it. A far better approach is to nurture the wheat (support the genuine devotion and faith of TLM communities) and address any weeds with targeted care (correction of errors, fostering greater understanding of Vatican II, etc.). The post-Vatican II Church rightly calls us to read the “signs of the times” – and the attachment of young Catholics to the traditional liturgy is surely a sign worth heeding. It is a call for the Church to remember what she has perhaps forgotten in recent decades: the power of sacred tradition as a living force for holiness and unity.

A Call for Pope Leo XIV to Heal, Not Deepen, the Divide

Faithful attend a solemn Traditional Latin Mass, drawn by its reverence and continuity with centuries of Catholic worship. Pope Leo XIV – the first American-born pope – now has the opportunity to address this contentious issue with wisdom born of experience. Having served for two years as Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops before his election, he is well aware of the liturgical divisions that intensified during Pope Francis’s tenure. Rather than wading further into “liturgy wars” on one side or the other, he can rise above factionalism and truly act as pontifex, a bridge-builder.

• Learning from Recent History: The new pope can glean valuable lessons from his predecessors. Pope Benedict XVI’s approach (SP) was marked by trust, magnanimity, and a clear affirmation that both old and new forms can coexist peacefully. He explicitly hoped that in time the two forms would “grow closer together” and enrich each other, eventually leading to greater unity . This approach was forward-looking and rooted in tradition. Pope Francis’s approach (TC), in contrast, was an abrupt course-correction fueled by fears of division. It’s apparent now that this intervention backfired – instead of extinguishing conflict, it arguably inflamed it. Pope Leo should not repeat the mistake of trying to impose unity from the top-down by fiat. Unity imposed by force is illusory and temporary. True unity must come from reconciliation and mutual respect, as Benedict envisioned.
• Heeding the Voice of the Faithful (and Bishops): Pope Leo XIV should take into account the actual lived experience of the Church as demonstrated in the 2020 survey and beyond. The leaked CDF assessment — which noted that most bishops saw Summorum Pontificum as beneficial and cautioned against heavy-handed change — should not be dismissed. Likewise, he can see with his own eyes the vitality of many traditional Mass communities: the young families, the vocations, the zeal. As the Associated Press reported, the leaked documents have increased pressure on Pope Leo to “pacify the liturgical divisions” that arose in recent years . He should recognize that the way to pacify these divisions is not to take a side in a war, but to end the war. This means lifting undue restrictions that target the TLM faithful and instead promoting guidelines for mutual charity. For example, Pope Leo could affirm the validity and value of the Novus Ordo (to reassure those worried about “rejecting Vatican II”) while simultaneously guaranteeing a generous space for the ancient liturgy for those who are drawn to it. This would send a clear signal that both forms belong to the Catholic Church, and no faithful Catholic should be demonized for attending either.
• Concrete Steps for Unity: There are practical steps the Pope could take to heal this rift:
  • Restore Trust: Remove the presumption of guilt that TC placed on traditionalist communities. Instead of treating them as suspect by default (requiring, for instance, new permissions at every turn), assume their good will unless proven otherwise. As one Italian bishop said in the survey, “I certainly believe that Summorum Pontificum cannot simply be revoked. Doing so would create more problems than we want to solve.” Pope Leo could acknowledge this truth and restore the legal framework of SP, perhaps with some tweaks to address genuine concerns (e.g., ensure priests are properly trained in the old rite and in ecclesiology).
  • Dialogue with Pastoral Leaders: The Pope might convene a group of bishops and leaders from both “sides” – those who have integrated the TLM successfully in their dioceses, and those who have had difficulties – to openly discuss fears and solutions. A lot of misunderstanding can be cleared up by face-to-face dialogue. Traditional faithful could reassure the Pope of their loyalty and orthodox belief, and bishops could voice their concerns about any problematic attitudes. Bridging the gap is possible when each actually listens to the other, rather than trading jabs through memos.
  • Promote Liturgical Reverence Universally: Many who attend the TLM do so because they hunger for reverence often lacking in typical parish liturgies. Pope Leo can address this by encouraging all celebrations of Mass – new or old – to be done with beauty and fidelity. This might include reaffirming the value of Latin and Gregorian chant even in the Novus Ordo (per Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium), encouraging ad orientem worship where appropriate, and cracking down on irreverent abuses. In other words, close the perceived “reverence gap”, and fewer people will feel they must “escape” to the TLM. If the new Mass is consistently offered in a sacral manner, it can stand in harmony with the old. Unity is served when every Catholic can experience Mass that lifts the heart to God.
  • Catechesis on the Council and Liturgy: One positive thing Pope Francis highlighted is the need to accept Vatican II. Pope Leo could commission clear teaching documents or initiatives to explain how the TLM fits within the Church after Vatican II – dispelling myths on both extremes (i.e., that Vatican II outlawed the old Mass – it didn’t; or that Vatican II is heretical – it isn’t). When traditionalists understand that the Council’s texts themselves did not demand many of the drastic changes that followed, they can better appreciate the Council. And when other Catholics understand that the TLM is not a rejection of Vatican II but a continuation of the Church’s timeless prayer (which the Council never intended to abolish), much fear can be allayed. In short, education and clarity can replace suspicion and ignorance (which Montagna noted was a cause of divergence – “nescience, prejudice and resistance of a minority of bishops” was to blame more than TLM adherents ).
• Charity and Pastoral Prudence: Above all, Pope Leo should act with the heart of a pastor. The TLM issue involves real people – many of whom have felt hurt and even labeled as “enemies within.” A little love goes a long way here. Imagine the healing effect if the Pope were to say, “To those Catholics who have been deeply attached to the older forms of the liturgy – I see your devotion, I hear your pain. You have a place in the Church.” And likewise, to say to those suspicious of the TLM, “Fear not – unity in the Church’s faith is my priority, and I will ensure that the use of the older liturgy does not undermine that, but rather serves it.” With such words and actions, a Pope can lower the temperature dramatically. The unity of the Church will benefit far more from an embrace than from an edict.

Let us remember that the Holy Father’s role is to be a sign of unity (“the visible principle and foundation of unity” in the Church, as Vatican II teaches). Pope Leo XIV will fulfill that role not by taking sides in an intra-Church squabble, but by rising above it to affirm what is true and good on both sides. The traditional liturgical rites are Catholic and good; the post-Vatican II reforms are legitimate and officially the ordinary way. Both these statements can be true. It is the mindset of “both/and” that has always made Catholicism “here comes everybody.” We can have unity in diversity.

I join many others in praying that Pope Leo will be inspired by the Holy Spirit to rebuild trust and communion in this matter. The liturgy should be a source of unity and strength for the Church, not a point of contention. By correcting the course set by Traditionis Custodes – not in a way that disparages Pope Francis, but in a way that gently adjusts to the reality on the ground – the new Pope can demonstrate humility and pastoral wisdom. In doing so, he would truly “benefit the unity of the Church,” as all popes desire.

Conclusion

The Traditional Latin Mass is not the enemy of Church unity – misinformation and lack of charity are. After examining all angles of this issue, it is clear that many of the arguments used to justify suppressing the TLM collapse under scrutiny. The survey of bishops commissioned by Pope Francis did not, in fact, show a widespread desire to restrict the old Mass; on the contrary, most bishops saw Summorum Pontificum as a positive force that had resolved tensions in their dioceses . The leaks validating this have only confirmed what observers long suspected: the crackdown was based on the perceptions (and prejudices) of a relative few, not the consensus of the whole Church. Furthermore, the depiction of the traditionalist faithful as a pack of divisive fundamentalists is a gross caricature. Yes, there are some loud, misguided voices on the fringe, but they no more represent all tradition-minded Catholics than radical progressives represent all who favor modern reforms.

The way forward is not to double-down on division by exclusion, but to embrace unity by inclusion. Pope Benedict XVI’s legacy in Summorum Pontificum was one of a father reaching out to reconcile with his children. It acknowledged that the Church, like a loving mother, could have both the venerable old and the vibrant new in her household. That remains true today. Indeed, one diocesan report from the leaked documents wisely cautioned that simply revoking Summorum Pontificum “would create more problems than we want to solve.” Tragically, Traditionis Custodes did just that on a global scale – it created more problems: hurt, anger, confusion, and yes, division.

Now is the time to solve those problems by restoring what was working and addressing, with precision and charity, whatever wasn’t. It is my firm belief – echoed by many pastors, bishops, and faithful – that a reinstatement of the generous approach of Summorum Pontificum (perhaps updated with minor guidelines to prevent genuine abuses) would greatly heal the rift. It would assure traditional Catholics that they are loved and valued members of the Church, and it would remove a source of contention that distracts from our common mission. Importantly, it would not harm those who prefer the Ordinary Form; it would simply allow two forms to coexist as before, in peace.

In conclusion, the criticisms leveled by the aforementioned commentator are unfounded in light of the evidence. The Traditional Latin Mass has proven to be a wellspring of grace for many souls and a point of unity-in-diversity, not division, in the Church – when handled with pastoral care. The true path to unity lies in listening, understanding, and shepherding – not in top-down suppression born of misunderstanding. The hope of many (including myself) is that the Church’s leadership will recognize this truth. The liturgical heritage of the ages is a treasure to be cherished, not a threat to be quashed. As Pope Emeritus Benedict wrote in his letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum, “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too” – it cannot suddenly become “totally forbidden or even considered harmful” .

It’s time to end the liturgy wars through prayer, charity, and a recognition of the legitimate plurality within our one Roman Rite. Then we will see the fulfillment of that “genuine liturgical peace” spoken of in the CDF’s report – a peace based not on one side vanquishing the other, but on both sides meeting in the heart of the Church, reconciled and mutually enriched. For the unity of the Church, for the glory of God, and for the sanctification of the faithful, let’s love and make room for all that is authentically Catholic – new and old – in our worship. That is the most powerful way to refute those who, however well-intentioned, have mischaracterized the Traditional Latin Mass. The truth, illuminated by charity, will prevail.

Sources:

1. Diane Montagna, Overall CDF Assessment of the 2020 Survey on Summorum Pontificum (leaked document) .
2. CatholicVote News, “Vatican correspondent reports ‘major cracks’ in basis of Traditionis Custodes” (Jul. 2, 2025) .
3. The Pillar, “Vatican spokesman: ‘Traditionis custodes’ leak ‘very partial’” (Jul. 3, 2025) .
4. Mike Lewis, Where Peter Is – “Will Pope Leo take on the traditionalists?” (Jul. 3, 2025) .
5. Cardinal Gerhard Müller, critique of Traditionis Custodes (Jul. 2021) .
6. Catholic News Agency, “Cardinal Müller critiques Pope Francis’ ‘harsh’ response…” (Jul. 19, 2021) .
7. Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, First Things – “Putting an End to the Liturgy Wars” (2023) .
8. Nicole Winfield, Associated Press report on leaked CDF documents (Jul. 2025) .
9. Catholicism.org News, “Montagna obtains CDF documents on Traditionis Custodes’ weak foundations” (Jul. 1, 2025) .