I don’t envy Pope Leo XIV as he determines how to approach dueling papal edicts about the celebration of the Tridentine Rite. His predecessors Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis took markedly different approaches to liturgical reform. Leo must chart a course between them while settling on which is fundamentally the correct path.

The problem? Pope Francis’ motu proprio “Traditionis Custodes” and Pope Benedict’s motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” offer contradictory claims about the liturgy. Beyond dealing with anti-magisterial tendencies often found in liturgically traditionalist Catholic communities, Leo must determine which moto proprio best expresses the unity of prayer and belief in the life of the church. It is a fraught choice but one of the key ones of his papacy. The goal is to ensure that the law of faith and the law of our prayers (lex credendi et lex orandi) are mutually enriching, such that there are no disjunctions between the way we pray and what we believe—and vice versa. 

For Benedict, the liturgy promulgated by Pope Paul VI after the Second Vatican Council was the ordinary rite, as in the standard expression of the lex orandi of the church; the Tridentine Rite, which largely follows Catholic liturgical practice before the council, is the extraordinary (as in non-standard) expression. But both were expressions of that law of prayer and so the law of faith. For Pope Francis, the reformed rite of Paul VI “constitute[s] the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” Francis wrote that there was “‘a single and identical prayer,’ that expressed the Church’s unity. This unity I intend to re-establish throughout the Church of the Roman Rite.” 

In other words, for Francis, there was no extraordinary expression of the lex orandi; there is only one Roman Rite and one unique expression of it, whereas Benedict had held that “these two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman Rite.” For Francis, the continued celebration of the extraordinary form leads to division because it insufficiently expresses in its lex orandi the lex credendi of the church.

A singular rite

Of course, Pope Benedict had a point when he wrote that “what earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too.” For centuries, the extraordinary rite was used in the celebration of the holy sacrifice of the Mass, which enriched the lives of saints and sinners for centuries. So what could be wrong with its continued celebration? 

First, it does not appear that Vatican II or Paul VI intended for there to be two expressions of the Roman Rite. Rather, the council called for, and Paul VI carried out, the reform and renewal of the Roman Rite. This is why the Tridentine Rite was “never judicially abrogated,” as Pope Benedict noted. To abrogate it would have been to say that there were two rites, one no longer allowed and one allowed. There really is only one rite in its unrenewed and renewed versions. 

That is why Francis quoted Paul VI in speaking of a single prayer. It is further why Francis stated that “[w]hoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite.” What traditionalist Catholics sometimes call “The Mass of the Ages” is the Vatican II Mass, because it is a singular rite, periodically reformed in the history of the Roman Church and reformed at Vatican II. 

The council fathers (including the future Pope Benedict) clearly believed that the Tridentine Rite needed reform and renewal. The aim was not to have two rites; it was to deepen and enrich the one rite of the Roman church. 

In God’s image

It is important to remember that the liturgical renewal was grounded in the renewal of the church’s philosophy of the human person as well as its ecclesiology. 

Vatican II provided definitive teachings about the nature of the church, developed the understanding of the dignity of the human person and restored the baptismal vocation of the laity. Grounded less in neo-Thomistic categories and more in the notion that we are all born in “the image and likeness of God,” the imago dei, both “Gaudium et Spes” and “Dignitatis Humanae” affirmed the human being as oriented towards God and so shaped by our capacity for union with God (a capacity only brought to fruition by God’s gift). Thus the human person, all human persons, can only be understood in light of the person of Jesus. “Lumen Gentium” further affirmed that the human vocation to holiness was not restricted to the clergy and religious; rather, all Christians have a vocation to sanctity. 

This understanding of the human person and the meaning of baptism means that laity, as “Apostolicam Actuositatem” teaches, “share in the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ and therefore have their own share in the mission of the whole people of God.” As such, we must understand the entire church as the body of Christ in which each member participates; thus “no part of the structure of a living body is merely passive but has a share in the functions as well as life of the body.” The laity are not just done to; they are active participants in the life of the church as expressed in her service, witness and worship. This “life of intimate union with Christ in the Church is nourished by spiritual aids which are common to all the faithful, especially active participation in the sacred liturgy.” 

It is from out of this deepened and broadened understanding of human vocation and the baptismal character that deepened and broadened engagement with the liturgy arises. Thus the council declared in “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” “in the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else.” This “before all else” reminds us that lay liturgical action is the primary purpose of the reformed liturgy. 

The council fathers engaged in liturgical reform were deeply troubled that in the Tridentine Rite, the laity were often at risk of being, as “Sacrosanctum Concilium” states, “strangers and silent spectators.” Certainly, in their inward devotion they could participate, but human participation is not only inward. It is full, active and conscious and thus enacted in word, movement and reception. While the Tridentine Rite is silent on the movements and actions of the laity, the rite promulgated by Paul VI invites us in, body and soul, to the actions of the liturgy that we offer with the priest. The lex orandi of the contemporary liturgy expresses the lex credendi of the church’s ecclesiology and its theology of the laity. The Tridentine Rite does not do so, or at least not as ably. To celebrate the latter is to have insufficient practice of worship that insufficiently expresses church teaching.

Much of what characterizes the ordinary form of the liturgy is its broadened sense of participation in the sacred mystery of the Mass, balancing two essential aspects: “the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood” and “a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten.” A banquet invites all to participate with the host; thus we conform our sacrifice with the priest while sharing in the banquet through the offertory, sign of peace, reception in both kinds and ritualized movements of our bodies. For this reason, the council fathers taught that full, active and conscious participation is a non-negotiable lex orandi, one expressive of the true meaning of being a member of the people of God gathered at what is both the altar of sacrifice and “the table of the Lord’s body.”

The development of doctrine is never a rupture, but it is an enriching of the tradition. This is why with “Traditionis Custodes,” Pope Francis served to preserve the tradition, because he guarded its full expression. 

Leo must take up that custodial role himself. If “Summorum Pontificum” and “Traditionis Custodes” offer different understandings of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite, then Leo must affirm one of them as the right understanding of the faithful—and thus resolve a significant division in the life of the church. 

Incorporating traditional elements

Leo would be wise in implementing “Traditionis Custodes” in a pastoral way, but also in a way that affirms the liturgy as practiced by the vast majority of Catholics today. In so doing, he should direct bishops to affirm a core insight that actually comes from traditionalists in the church: The contemporary liturgy needs more reverence and a more transcendental orientation. I agree with traditionalist Catholics that too often these have been neglected in the way that many celebrated the reformed liturgy. We need a deeply traditional celebration of the contemporary rite of the Mass.

How can this be done? First, the ordinary form of the Mass needs to integrate Latin more fully into its expression. Some of the Latin prayers in the Roman tradition remain essential expressions of our unity and universality, especially the Sanctus, Agnus Dei, Gloria and Pater Noster. They should be prayed together in Latin.

Second, we should give pride of place and priority of usage to the Roman canon (Eucharistic Prayer #1) in the celebration of the Mass. While the implementation of four Eucharistic canons was a great gift of the reforms of Vatican II to the celebration of Mass in different circumstances, there is nothing wrong with making normative a canon that most fully incorporates the liturgical tradition of the church.

Third, celebration of the Eucharistic prayer ad orientem can be welcomed as a rich liturgical option. Similarly, parishes where the Tridentine Rite has been celebrated as an option should be encouraged to celebrate the ordinary form fully—but in Latin, ad orientem, and with many of the aesthetic features that do genuinely elevate the mind and heart to God. 

Fourth, the many liturgical abuses that go unchecked in many parishes should be more expressly condemned and eliminated. This is an urgent manner and should be treated that way.

By implementing “Traditionis Custodes” with these pastoral touches, Leo can show himself to be a pastor to those attached to the Tridentine Rite and affirm that they are still deeply committed Catholics. He can thus encourage pastors to be sensitive to the good motivations that shape the longings of more traditional Catholics while avoiding spiritual harm.

It is part of the mission of the pope to guard the tradition and ensure unity. To do so, Pope Leo XIV will have to reconcile the liturgical division between the previous two papacies and amongst Catholics. It will be no easy task, but I certainly trust that he is the right man to watch over the fullness of what has been handed on—and thus to bring greater unity to our prayer and belief.

Terence Sweeney is a professor in the Honors Program at Villanova University.