Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

For many Catholics, the traditional Roman liturgy is not merely in danger of being taken away. It has already been taken away. Diocesan celebrations have been suppressed, parishes have been forbidden to continue them, and faithful families have been told that the Mass which nourished generations of saints is no longer available to them. Some now drive long distances to find it. Others have no diocesan celebration within reach at all.

Where communities such as the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter remain, the faithful are grateful. These priests have sought to preserve the traditional liturgy while maintaining a recognized canonical relationship with Rome. But precisely because they continue to submit to Roman authority, their people still live with the possibility that permissions may be narrowed, communities displaced, or the Mass restricted again. They know that what is permitted today may be withdrawn tomorrow.

Other Catholics have turned to chapels of the Society of Saint Pius X. We must speak honestly about that reality as well. Even after the unauthorized episcopal consecrations of July 2026 and the resulting canonical penalties, SSPX chapels remain crowded. The faithful attending them have not suddenly ceased to love the Mass, nor do they believe that a declared canonical penalty has transformed them into non-Catholics. Many question whether the excommunications were justly incurred in the circumstances, and they do not accept the claim that the traditional Mass offered there is invalid. 

I am not minimizing the gravity of consecrating bishops without a papal mandate or pretending that the unresolved canonical situation is unimportant. But Rome must also confront the pastoral situation its own policies have helped to create. Catholics have repeatedly been warned not to seek the sacraments from the SSPX. At the same time, the traditional Mass has been eliminated from their parishes, diocesan priests have been forbidden to offer it, and approved traditional communities remain subject to restriction. Rome cannot continue removing every available refuge and then express astonishment when the faithful go where the traditional Mass is still being offered.

Many of these Catholics are not seeking rebellion. They are seeking the Mass. They want to worship as their fathers worshiped, receive the sacraments reverently, raise their children in the faith, and remain rooted in the tradition of the Church. When they are told that their only practical choices are to abandon the liturgy that formed the saints or attend a chapel whose canonical status Rome condemns, they reasonably ask who created this impossible situation. 

Responsibility cannot be placed entirely upon families who have watched the traditional Mass disappear around them. Shepherds who suppress the inherited worship of the Church must reckon with the souls displaced by those decisions. If continued restrictions drive Catholics toward communities in conflict with Rome, those restrictions are not healing division. They are deepening it. 

Yet these Catholics are still spoken about as though they are the problem to be managed. Their attachment to the traditional Mass is treated as suspicion of the Church, rejection of the Second Vatican Council, or resistance to legitimate authority. Some appear to believe that peace in the Church will be achieved only when the older Roman rite finally disappears. 

I believe we must speak plainly: the traditional Roman liturgy is not a disease in the Body of Christ. It is not an ideological weapon, a museum piece, or a dangerous relic from an unenlightened past. It is a sacred treasure of the Church. It formed countless saints, nourished martyrs, sustained missionaries, sanctified families, and carried the Catholic faith across nations and centuries.

What was sacred for our fathers remains sacred for us. What gave glory to God and sanctified souls for centuries cannot suddenly become a threat to the Church.

This does not mean that every Catholic devoted to the traditional Mass is without fault. No group within the Church is immune from pride, anger, factionalism, or lack of charity. Love for tradition must never become contempt for other Catholics. Legitimate criticism must never become an excuse for rejecting the divinely established constitution of the Church. But neither should the failures of some be used to punish all. Catholics should not be deprived of an ancient and venerable form of worship because their love for it makes others uncomfortable.

The question before us is larger than preference. It concerns the nature of the sacred liturgy, the authority of tradition, the limits of liturgical reform, and the responsibility of the Church to hand on what she has received. 

God Acts First

We must begin with a fundamental Catholic truth: in the sacred liturgy, God acts first.

The liturgy is not principally something we manufacture, design, or perform. It is not a religious gathering whose value depends upon our creativity, enthusiasm, or emotional response. In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Jesus Christ acts through His ordained priest. The one Sacrifice of Calvary is made sacramentally present. Christ offers Himself to the Father, and He gives Himself to His people as the Bread of Life.

Because God acts first, the sacraments do not depend for their validity upon the personal holiness of the priest, the beauty of the church, the quality of the music, or the spiritual fervor of the congregation. These things matter greatly for the worthy and fruitful celebration of the sacred mysteries, but they do not cause Christ to become present. 

For this reason, we must state clearly what the Catholic faith requires us to affirm. The Novus Ordo, when celebrated by a validly ordained priest with valid matter and form and with the intention of doing what the Church does, is a valid Mass. Jesus Christ becomes truly present – Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity – and the Sacrifice of Calvary is made sacramentally present.

This must be said because a growing number of voices now speak as though the reformed Mass is necessarily invalid, as though no consecration takes place, or as though Catholics who attend it worship only bread and wine. Such claims cross a boundary that Catholics should not cross.

For decades after the Council, the traditional Roman Mass virtually disappeared from ordinary parish life. Millions of Catholics did not choose the liturgical revolution. They did not ask for ancient altars to be destroyed, sanctuaries to be stripped, Latin to vanish, Gregorian chant to be discarded, or Communion rails to be removed. They simply went to their parish churches seeking Jesus Christ. They received the liturgy placed before them because, in most places, they had no other Mass available.

Are we prepared to say that Our Lord abandoned them? Are we to believe that generations of faithful Catholics approached the altar seeking the Bread of Life and that their heavenly Father gave them a stone? Are we to say that God left His people unfed?

No. Christ did not abandon His Church. The failures, imprudence, and destructive decisions of churchmen did not overcome the faithfulness of God.

But this truth must immediately be joined to another: we must never use the faithfulness of God to vindicate every decision made by men.

The validity of the Novus Ordo does not prove that the reform was prudent. It does not prove that its construction represented an organic development of the Roman rite. It does not excuse the removal or alteration of venerable prayers, the multiplication of options, the weakening of ritual gestures, the abandonment of sacred language, or the devastating manner in which the reform was imposed.

Validity is essential, but validity is not the only question Catholics may ask.

What Actually Happened After the Council

The Novus Ordo was not simply the ancient Roman Mass translated into the vernacular. It was an extensive reconstruction of the rite.

Prayers were removed or altered. The ancient Offertory was replaced. New Eucharistic Prayers entered common use. The lectionary and calendar were substantially changed. Ritual gestures were reduced or simplified. A wide range of options was introduced, allowing the celebration of Mass to vary significantly from parish to parish and even from priest to priest.

In ordinary Catholic life, Latin nearly vanished. Gregorian chant was displaced. Celebration facing the people became nearly universal. High altars and altar rails were removed or destroyed. Communion in the hand became widespread. Lay extraordinary ministers became ordinary features of parish worship. Sacred silence gave way to constant speech and activity. Music modeled upon popular entertainment entered the sanctuary.

We must be honest: many of these changes were not required by the Second Vatican Council.

Sacrosanctum Concilium did not abolish Latin. It directed that the use of the Latin language be preserved while permitting a suitable use of the vernacular. It did not require the priest to face the people. It did not command Communion in the hand. It did not order the removal of altar rails or high altars. It did not authorize liturgical improvisation. It did not ask that Gregorian chant be replaced by music derived from contemporary popular culture. Indeed, the Council declared that Gregorian chant should be given pride of place in the Roman liturgy.

Catholics should therefore reject two false explanations.

The first claims that Vatican II explicitly required the entire liturgical transformation that followed. It did not.

The second insists that the reform itself was beyond criticism and that every subsequent difficulty resulted only from isolated abuses. That explanation is also inadequate.

Certainly, grave abuses occurred. Priests improvised texts, changed prayers, introduced irreverent practices, and sometimes treated the sanctuary as a stage. But serious structural questions remain. The multiplication of options encouraged instability and variation. Simplified prayers and gestures often communicated the sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Mass less clearly. Near-total vernacularization severed Catholics from a sacred language shared across centuries and nations. The practical reorientation of the priest toward the people made the celebration appear increasingly centered upon the assembled community rather than upon the common worship of God.

The problem was not merely that a good reform was occasionally implemented badly. The scale, speed, methods, assumptions, and texts of the reform itself must be examined honestly.

Bugnini and the Work of the Consilium

No honest examination of the reform can avoid the name of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini. 

In 1964, Pope Paul VI established the Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Bugnini served as its secretary and became the dominant organizer and driving force behind the postconciliar rites. The Consilium did not merely translate the existing books or make limited adjustments. Under Bugnini’s direction, committees dismantled the inherited liturgy into component parts, revised those parts according to contemporary theories, and assembled a substantially new order of worship.

That method was itself a rupture. The sacred liturgy is not a machine to be redesigned by experts. It is a living inheritance received and handed down within the Church. Authentic development grows organically from what came before: it does not remove one form of worship and construct another in its place.

The evidence is in the missals. The ancient Offertory prayers – rich in the language of sacrifice, sin, unworthiness, propitiation, and the spotless Victim – were removed and replaced by brief formulas adapted from Jewish table blessings. Signs of the Cross, genuflections, bows, kisses of the altar, and silent priestly prayers were greatly reduced. New Eucharistic Prayers were composed, the ancient Roman Canon became uncommon, the calendar and lectionary were substantially reworked, and multiplied options replaced the stable reception of a fixed inheritance.

The reform Bugnini directed prepared the way for the transformation of parish worship. Latin nearly disappeared, despite the Council’s command that it be preserved. Gregorian chant was displaced, despite the pride of place given to it by the Council. Celebration facing the people became nearly universal. High altars and altar rails were destroyed. Communion in the hand spread. Extraordinary ministers became routine. The priest increasingly appeared as the host of an assembly rather than the sacred minister standing before God to offer the Holy Sacrifice.

This is where the Protestantization of Catholic worship must be named. The prayers and gestures most clearly expressing sacrifice, propitiation, the unique priesthood, human unworthiness, and the sacred character of the altar were precisely those most extensively reduced or removed. In their place came greater emphasis upon the gathered assembly, a table facing the people, constant audible speech, expanded lay functions, a weakened separation between sanctuary and nave, and formulas less offensive to Protestant objections to the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. The reformed rite remained capable of making present the true Sacrifice, but its outward form moved Catholic worship markedly in a Protestant direction.

The use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion is a particularly damaging example. The traditional Roman rite does not employ laypeople to distribute Holy Communion. One priest can communicate a large congregation, even if the faithful must wait prayerfully. Efficiency is not a liturgical principle, and saving several minutes does not justify laypeople handling the Sacred Species.

The routine entrance of laypeople into the sanctuary to approach the altar and distribute the Eucharist blurs the common priesthood of the baptized with the ministerial priesthood conferred by Holy Orders. The laity possess an indispensable vocation, but their dignity does not depend upon assuming sanctuary functions. Clericalizing the laity confuses vocations, while reducing the priest to one minister among many obscures his sacramental configuration to Christ. The deepest participation in Mass is not performing a role; it is interior union with the Sacrifice of Christ.

Communion in the hand has likewise caused grave harm. It was not commanded by the Council. It spread through disobedient practice and was later permitted by indult; an exception then became commonplace. Kneeling at the altar rail and receiving upon the tongue from the consecrated hands of a priest teaches that the Eucharist is received rather than taken and that we approach the King of Kings in adoration. Standing in a moving line and receiving in the hand can all too easily resemble the distribution of ordinary food.

There are objective dangers as well. Fragments of the Sacred Host may remain upon the hand or fall to the floor. Hosts can be carried away or deliberately profaned. I do not judge the hearts of Catholics who were taught to receive this way and approach Our Lord sincerely. The question is whether the practice adequately safeguards the Blessed Sacrament and forms belief in the Real Presence. After decades of collapsing Eucharistic faith, we must admit that it has not. Restoring Communion kneeling and on the tongue would be an act of reparation, protection, and wordless catechesis: this is not bread; this is Jesus Christ.

These developments changed the theological atmosphere of Catholic worship. A rite teaches through words, but also through silence, gesture, posture, orientation, and what it chooses to preserve or remove. The Protestantizing direction was not merely a later abuse; it was facilitated by the reform’s texts, options, omissions, and ritual orientation. The books are before us, the method is known, and the consequences are visible. The Church will not recover from this crisis by refusing to name what Bugnini and the Consilium did.

Validity Does Not End the Discussion

Some Catholics hear the word “valid” and believe that every further question must cease. But the Church has never judged her liturgical life solely according to the lowest threshold required for sacramental validity. 

A hurried and irreverent Mass may be valid. A Mass surrounded by banal music, casual behavior, and doctrinally weak preaching may be valid. A valid Mass may be celebrated in a manner that obscures the sacrificial action, encourages casual reception of Holy Communion, and weakens belief in the Real Presence.

We should be grateful whenever and wherever Jesus Christ makes Himself present for His people. But gratitude for the sacrament does not require silence about everything that surrounds its celebration.

There is an enormous difference between asking, “Did consecration take place?” and asking, “Does this rite express the Catholic faith with the clarity, reverence, continuity, and fullness that the worship of Almighty God demands?”

The Church does not owe God the minimum. She owes Him her highest worship.

Therefore, to affirm the validity of the Novus Ordo is not to defend the liturgical revolution. It is to defend the faithfulness of Christ. God did not leave His people unfed. But God’s fidelity must not be presented as a certificate of approval for every human decision involved in the reform.

The Fruits Must Be Examined

Our Lord teaches us that a tree is known by its fruits. This does not mean that every complex historical development can be reduced to one cause. The cultural revolution of the 1960s, the sexual revolution, secularization, weakening family life, failures in catechesis, and countless other forces inflicted terrible damage upon the Church. 

Nevertheless, the fruits surrounding the liturgical reform cannot simply be ignored.

Large portions of the Catholic world experienced collapsing Mass attendance, disappearing priestly and religious vocations, widespread disbelief or confusion concerning the Real Presence, the abandonment of Confession, casual reception of Holy Communion, and the destruction or disfigurement of sanctuaries. Catholic identity weakened dramatically. In many places, the sense of the sacred was replaced by informality, experimentation, and an intense focus upon community participation.

No honest person should claim that the liturgical reform alone caused every one of these losses. But neither should anyone declare the reform an unquestionable pastoral triumph while refusing to examine the devastation that accompanied it.

When a reform is followed by decades of liturgical instability, declining belief, diminished participation, and confusion concerning the very nature of the Mass, shepherds have a duty to examine whether elements of the reform contributed to the crisis. 

That examination is not disobedience. It is not nostalgia. It is a responsibility owed to God and to souls.

The Traditional Roman Rite is Not the Enemy

Against this background, the continued effort to restrict the traditional Roman Mass becomes especially difficult to justify.

The older rite did not create the postconciliar crisis. It did not empty the seminaries, close the convents, destroy belief in the Real Presence, or produce generations of Catholics unable to explain the sacrificial nature of the Mass. It nourished the Church through centuries of holiness, persecution, missionary expansion, and cultural upheaval.

Why, then, is this liturgy treated as the danger?

Why are young families, converts, seminarians, and priests who discover its beauty met with suspicion? Why are bishops encouraged to restrict what earlier generations of bishops were bound to preserve? Why is attachment to the inherited worship of the Roman Church treated as an ideological pathology?

The traditional Roman rite draws many people precisely because it communicates realities that contemporary Catholic life has too often obscured. It tells us through word, silence, gesture, orientation, and sacred language that the Mass is a sacrifice; that the priest stands at the altar as an ordained mediator acting in the person of Christ; that the Eucharist is not ordinary food; that the sanctuary is a sacred place; that worship is directed toward God; and that we enter a mystery which we receive rather than create.

These are not partisan slogans. They are Catholic truths.

As Pope Benedict XVI affirmed, the older Missal was never juridically abrogated. What was sacred for previous generations remains sacred and great for us. The Church does not preserve her unity by pretending that her own inheritance has become harmful.

Unity is not uniformity, and authority is not strengthened by unnecessary severity. A father does not bring peace to his family by taking bread from some of his children because other members of the household dislike the way they receive it.

If the Church speaks of listening, accompaniment, dialogue, and pastoral sensitivity, those principles must also apply to faithful Catholics who love the traditional Roman liturgy.

Neither Rebellion Nor Silence

To Catholics devoted to tradition, I offer an appeal: do not allow justified sorrow or righteous anger to be transformed into contempt for the Church.

Do not conclude that every Novus Ordo Mass is invalid. Do not tell faithful Catholics that they have never received Jesus Christ. Do not allow the failure of shepherds to separate you from the Church Christ founded. Do not permit love for the traditional Mass to become hatred of those who have known no other form of worship.

At the same time, I will not ask you to remain silent about what has been lost. I will not tell you that the devastation is imaginary, that every problem is merely an abuse, or that fidelity requires pretending the liturgical revolution was a success.

The Catholic path is neither rebellion nor denial; it is fidelity in truth.

We must recognize the grace Christ continues to give while speaking honestly about the damage done by men. We must defend the unity of the Church without surrendering the right and duty to judge reforms according to Sacred Tradition, perennial doctrine, and the good of souls.

A Path of Restoration

The Church does not need another generation of liturgical warfare. She needs restoration.

That restoration must begin by allowing the traditional Roman liturgy to flourish freely throughout the Church. Priests should not be treated as disobedient merely because they desire to celebrate it. Families should not live in fear that their spiritual homes will be closed. Seminarians should not be punished for loving the worship that formed the saints. Bishops should exercise their authority as fathers rather than as administrators enforcing suspicion against tradition.

The broader life of the Church also needs a recovery of reverence, sacred silence, worship ad orientem, Latin, Gregorian chant, worthy reception of Holy Communion, frequent Confession, doctrinal preaching, beautiful sanctuaries, and an unmistakable sense that the Mass is the Holy Sacrifice of Christ offered to the Father.

These things are not decorations added for those with refined tastes. They protect and express the faith.

Lex orandi, lex credendi: the law of prayer is the law of belief. When Catholic worship visibly expresses sacrifice, transcendence, adoration, sin, grace, judgment, mercy, and the Real Presence, Catholic faith is strengthened. When those realities are muted, obscured, or displaced, belief inevitably suffers. 

The traditional Roman rite must not be driven to the margins and allowed to survive only by temporary permission. It belongs to the Church. It is part of our common spiritual inheritance.

The validity of the Novus Ordo is a testimony to the fidelity of Christ. The survival and renewed growth of the traditional Roman Mass is also a testimony to His providence. God has not abandoned His Church. Even amid confusion and loss, He continues to draw souls toward truth, reverence, sacrifice, and holiness.

Let us therefore refuse false choices. We do not have to deny the validity of the reformed Mass in order to acknowledge the grave problems of the reform. We do not have to reject the Church in order to resist the suppression of her tradition. We do not have to choose between charity and truth.

The path forward is fidelity: fidelity to Jesus Christ, fidelity to the Holy Eucharist, fidelity to the received tradition of the Church, and fidelity to the souls who hunger for sacred worship.

The answer to the present crisis is not further restriction. It is not the silencing of legitimate questions or the punishment of Catholics who love tradition. The answer is freedom for the traditional Roman liturgy, restoration of the sacred throughout the Church, and humble submission to the truth that worship belongs first to God.

May the Blessed Virgin Mary, who stood beneath the Cross and received the sacrifice of her Son in perfect faith, intercede for the Church. May St. Gregory the Great and all the holy guardians of the Roman liturgy pray for us. And may Jesus Christ, our Eternal High Priest, purify His Church and lead us once more to worship the Father in spirit and in truth. 

And may Almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Bishop Joseph E. Strickland

Bishop Emeritus