Posted on 07/03/2025 3:52:22 PM PDT by ebb tide
Journalist Diane Montagna recently published the report prepared by the Vatican following the questionnaire that, in 2020, the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had sent to the presidents of episcopal conferences around the world. The aim — or so it appeared — was to assess how Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum [henceforth SP] had been received and to evaluate its pastoral effectiveness.
Through that legislative act, the German Pope sought to liberalize the celebration of the Mass according to the vetus ordo, which he himself described as the “extraordinary form of the Roman Rite,” hoping to restore liturgical peace within the Church. Until then, the Traditional Mass could be celebrated only with formal approval from the local bishop. In contrast, the Argentine Pope, in 2021, issued Traditionis Custodes [henceforth TC], effectively suspending what his predecessor had granted “with great magnanimity.” The official rationale cited a growing climate of division within the Church, and the document was intended to restore ecclesial unity.
Today, thanks to the publication of the official report based on the 2020 questionnaire on the application of SP, it is possible to reconstruct more clearly the context and motivations that led to the issuance of TC.
Exclusive, sterile, and divisive — these three adjectives neatly summarize Martini’s view of the traditional liturgy. A perspective later embraced by Roche, Viola, Parolin, and consequently by Bergoglio, as well as by all those who continue to oppose the Traditional Liturgy.
As is now widely known, Pope Francis’ aversion to traditional liturgy was, over the years, fueled by three curial figures: Cardinal Arthur Roche (Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments since 2021), Bishop Vittorio Francesco Viola (Secretary of the same Dicastery since 2021), and Cardinal Pietro Parolin (Secretary of State since 2013).
From the time Pope Benedict XVI issued his motu proprio, Arthur Roche — Bishop of Leeds, UK — worked to restrict its application by offering a limiting interpretation. According to his view, the celebration of the Traditional Mass in a parish was permitted only for parishioners who already belonged to that community and had long participated in the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. In other words, those wishing to approach the ancient liturgy for the first time could not benefit from it.
In practice, this interpretation reduced the document’s scope to a concession intended merely to appease the elderly and the nostalgic. However, in 2011, this reading was officially rejected by the Vatican when the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei issued the instruction Universae Ecclesiae, which reaffirmed the universal applicability of the provision.
At the time, Roche acted as the spokesperson for a group of bishops and curial officials who had long viewed Benedict XVI’s papacy with deep concern due to his positions, which were perceived as conservative—if not outright “traditionalist.” Among them was the prominent figure of the neomodernist camp, Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini [1927–2012]. Martini publicly attacked Pope Ratzinger’s motu proprio in the Italian press, publishing an article that clearly laid out three reasons why the Traditional Latin Mass should be completely excluded from the life of the Church.
First, Martini believed that the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent liturgical reform led by Bugnini represented significant progress in the understanding of the liturgy, particularly through the increased centrality of the Word of God.
Second, he argued that the liturgical and spiritual context of the pre-conciliar rite conveyed a rigid vision, less open to personal freedom and the individual responsibility of the faithful.
Third, the coexistence of two distinct (especially—and perhaps primarily—on the theological level) forms of the same Rite, according to Martini, threatened the unity of the Church and complicated the pastoral mission of bishops.
“I trust in the traditional good sense of our people,” remarked the then Archbishop of Milan in the article in question, “who will understand that a bishop already struggles to provide the Eucharist for all, and cannot easily multiply celebrations or conjure ordained ministers out of nowhere to meet every individual's needs.”
Exclusive, sterile, and divisive — these three adjectives neatly summarize Martini’s view of the traditional liturgy. A perspective later embraced by Roche, Viola, Parolin, and consequently by Bergoglio, as well as by all those who continue to oppose the Traditional Liturgy.
Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin played a central, decisive, and deeply influential role in the development and implementation of TC. According to reliable sources, his stance was not merely one of cautious reservation, but one of clear and firm opposition to the traditional liturgy, which he views as incompatible with the “new ecclesial paradigm” promoted by Pope Francis.
Roche was Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship when TC was promulgated. According to numerous sources, he was the primary figure responsible for implementing the motu proprio, often in a particularly authoritative manner and at times exceeding his mandate. In 2023, Roche stated in a BBC interview that “the theology of the Church has changed,” and therefore the Traditional Mass could no longer adequately express the now-dominant nouvelle théologie. Even more controversially, in his response to Cardinal Nichols of Westminster, Roche claimed that Pope Paul VI had “abrogated” the Missal of St. Pius V — a statement deemed not only debatable but also theologically unfounded. This was refuted by Benedict XVI and, above all, by the magisterial formula used by Pope St. Pius V in 1570 at the conclusion of the bull Quo Primum Tempore, explicitly declaring that the Roman Missal could not be abrogated.
Another prominent prelate who strongly opposed Benedict XVI’s pontificate from the outset — and for whom Roche proved an effective spokesman — was English Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor [1932–2017], Archbishop of Westminster. A well-known critic of the Traditional Liturgy, he officially welcomed SP but instructed his parish priests to continue requesting formal permission from him in order to celebrate the extraordinary form, despite the Pope’s provisions to the contrary. It’s worth recalling that Murphy-O’Connor was among the members of the so-called “St. Gallen Mafia,” a group of progressive prelates who met annually in Switzerland from 1995 to 2006 to discuss proposed reforms in episcopal appointments, collegiality, the Petrine primacy, sexual morality — and strategies to influence papal conclaves to their advantage.
Bishop Vittorio Francesco Viola, Secretary of the Dicastery for Divine Worship since 2021 (the same year Roche became Prefect), is considered the second driving force behind the conception and implementation of TC. He openly identifies as a great admirer of Annibale Bugnini [1912–1982], whose liturgical revolution in an anti-traditional direction he seeks to continue — to the point of devoutly wearing Bugnini’s episcopal ring.
As is now widely known, Bugnini had been initiated into Freemasonry. This was confirmed by both Masonic and Catholic sources. According to the Masonic side, journalist Mino Pecorelli reported that Bugnini was affiliated in Rome with the Grand Lodge of Italy on April 23, 1963, under registration number 1365/75 and the pseudonym BUAN.
On the Catholic side, Canadian Archbishop (later Cardinal) Édouard Gagnon secretly investigated Masonic infiltration in the Curia, under pressure from Cardinal Giovanni Benelli and with the cautious approval of Pope Paul VI. The Gagnon dossier was later stolen. Thanks to witnesses from that period, we know that Bugnini’s name was among those identified by Archbishop Gagnon.
Upon reading the document, the overall impression is that, although the traditional liturgy was present at the time in a relatively limited percentage of Roman Rite dioceses worldwide (around 20%), it bore significant and lasting fruits for both the faithful and the life of the Church.
Returning to Bishop Viola, within the Dicastery for Divine Worship he is known for being far more industrious than Cardinal Arthur Roche. According to various sources, Viola is said to have been the chief architect behind the documents issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments after TC. Most notably, he is believed to be the author of the apostolic letter Desiderio Desideravi on the “liturgical formation of the people of God” (2022), which many regard as “Francis’ liturgical charter,” though in reality it reflects the typical literature found in liturgy courses at Italian seminaries, particularly those run by the Pontifical Atheneum of Sant’Anselmo—the Roman institute dedicated to liturgical studies.
He is credited with repeatedly imposing bans in recent years on young priests, despite the requests of their respective bishops, preventing them from celebrating the Traditional Mass. One notable case involves Bishop François Touvet, coadjutor bishop of Fréjus-Toulon, France, who was informed by Viola that candidates from the Société des Missionnaires de la Miséricorde Divine could only be ordained using the reformed rite and would therefore be restricted to celebrating the Novus Ordo.
Equally emblematic was the refusal to authorize the celebration of the extraordinary form in the Basilica of Covadonga, Spain, for the closing of the 4th Pilgrimage of Nuestra Señora de la Cristiandad. This decision earned him the nickname Monsignor Nada, Nada, Nada, in contrast to Pope Francis’s famous todos, todos, todos.
Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin played a central, decisive, and deeply influential role in the development and implementation of TC. According to reliable sources, his stance was not merely one of cautious reservation, but one of clear and firm opposition to the traditional liturgy, which he views as incompatible with the “new ecclesial paradigm” promoted by Pope Francis.
This new paradigm—rooted in a “pure” reinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council—is described by Parolin in terms of synodality, globalization, and decentralization of the Church, in contrast to the more hierarchical, sacral, and unified vision of Tradition. In this light, Parolin was a key contributor to the formulation of TC, fully endorsing its underlying philosophy and regulatory framework.
From the analysis of the bishops’ responses, a widespread sense of satisfaction emerges—especially among those who knew how to pastorally accompany the so-called “stable groups,” often made up of young people and converts who found in the solemnity of the ancient rite a safe harbor amid the storm of secularization.
During a preparatory session for the survey that served as the foundation for Bergoglio’s motu proprio, Parolin reportedly stated, “We must put an end to this Mass once and for all.” In another meeting held in January 2020, he expressed concern over the growing appeal of the Vetus Ordo among young people and the reluctance of former Ecclesia Dei institutes to conform to the reformed rite and concelebration. In his view, such attachment to Tradition constituted a “form of ecclesial disobedience.” Consequently, Parolin repeatedly insisted that groups devoted to the Traditional Liturgy demonstrate “concrete signs of communion,” including the regular celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass.
This theological vision of Parolin aligns with the broader reformist current of the Francis papacy, echoing other controversial documents such as Amoris Laetitia. The ecclesiology developed by the Cardinal from Vicenza favors a fluid, global, and dialogical Church rather than one sacral, rooted in Tradition and the organic continuity of divine worship.
It is therefore not surprising that, in 2024, Cardinal Parolin supported Bishop Viola in proposing further restrictions—more radical than those already imposed by TC. The new draft document aimed to completely ban the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, except in a handful of authorized institutes, preventing bishops from approving it in their dioceses and even revoking previously granted permissions. In this initiative, he reportedly found support from other prelates, including Cardinals Victor Fernández (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith), Claudio Gugerotti (Dicastery for the Eastern Churches), and Archbishop Celestino Migliore (Apostolic Nuncio to Paris).
The publication of the official report issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2020, following the questionnaire sent to episcopal conferences around the world to assess the pastoral effectiveness of SP, allows us to reconstruct the history behind TC with greater clarity.
Upon reading the document, we find it offers a detailed and lucid picture of a complex yet far from marginal reality. The overall impression is that, although the traditional liturgy was present at the time in a relatively limited percentage of Roman Rite dioceses worldwide (around 20%), it bore significant and lasting fruits for both the faithful and the life of the Church.
Positive effects were also noted on the reformed liturgy celebrated by “biritual” priests: greater care, greater sense of the sacred, and heightened attention to silence and the dignity of worship.
From the analysis of the bishops’ responses, a widespread sense of satisfaction emerges—especially among those who knew how to pastorally accompany the so-called “stable groups,” often made up of young people and converts who found in the solemnity of the ancient rite a safe harbor amid the storm of secularization. Positive effects were also noted on the reformed liturgy celebrated by “biritual” priests: greater care, greater sense of the sacred, and heightened attention to silence and the dignity of worship.
Yet in some ecclesial contexts, resistance persisted: the Traditional Rite was viewed by some with suspicion, at times openly opposed, and at other times interpreted as a vehicle of dissent against the Second Vatican Council. The concern expressed by many bishops, however, was of a different nature: the suspension, abrogation, or scaling back of SP would have risked reopening wounds that were gradually healing. Any legislative change was seen as potentially dangerous, as it would delegitimize not only the work of Benedict XVI, but also that of John Paul II, who in 1988 issued the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta precisely to avoid schisms and preserve the unity of the Church.
A return to a regime of indult, warned bishops responding to the 2020 survey, would signal to many faithful a return to a Church where they feel like tolerated guests, rather than recognized sons and daughters. The faithful attached to the Traditional liturgy—often treated for years with condescension or even hostility—had found in SP a gesture of fatherhood. One particularly poignant response came from a bishop in the Philippines: “Let the people be free to choose.”
As for the accusation of divisiveness, the report shows that wherever bishops have exercised true pastoral fatherhood, coexistence between the two forms of the Roman Rite is not only possible, but even desirable. Many noted that the traditional rite's presence has elevated the quality of ordinary celebrations.
The document compiling bishops’ responses to SP offers an implicit yet powerful rebuttal to the view expressed by Carlo Maria Martini regarding traditional liturgy. Contrary to Martini’s portrayal of the pre-conciliar liturgy as closed, rigid, and incapable of speaking to the modern soul, many bishops reported that the vetus ordo is primarily attended by young people, large families, and converts; it is not a nostalgic refuge but a living experience that fosters vocations and strengthens the faith. Far from being sterile, the Traditional Mass appears more spiritually fruitful than the reformed rite, which is notably vulnerable to “liturgical creativity.”
As for the accusation of divisiveness, the report shows that wherever bishops have exercised true pastoral fatherhood, coexistence between the two forms of the Roman Rite is not only possible, but even desirable. Many noted that the traditional rite's presence has elevated the quality of ordinary celebrations. Division arises not from the rite itself but from intolerance toward it. TC—and more broadly, the pontificate of Pope Francis—has proven to be far more divisive than SP. This perception was clearly reflected in the cardinals’ choice to elect someone like Prevost as Francis’s successor, seen as capable of restoring lost unity.
Finally, regarding the charge of exclusivity, a paradox emerges: it is precisely the return to centralized and restrictive governance—championed by Martini—that has created fresh tensions and suffering. In contrast, SP managed to include and reconcile without imposing anything, simply by preserving freedom within Tradition. It effectively restored a sense of responsibility to the individual faithful—something Martini failed to recognize in the Traditional Mass.
Ping
Martini on the rocks.
Scoundrels all!
They care not about souls, but about prancing and being the star....move over Jesus, look at MREE everybody!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.