A Courtesy Without Reform: Bishop Rifan, Traditionis Custodes, and the Unresolved Rupture in the Roman Rite
The audience granted by Pope Leo XIV on 15 November 2025 to Bishop Fernando Arêas Rifan, apostolic administrator of the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Vianney, was described in Vatican records as one of the “ordinary audiences” of the Holy Father. Yet as even the Catholic Herald notes, the encounter “carries a weight that exceeds its brief notice.”¹ Bishop Rifan is the only bishop in the world whose entire pastoral jurisdiction is expressly and exclusively dedicated to the Traditional Latin Mass, erected in 2002 by Pope John Paul II as a unique diocesan-like structure for the faithful of Campos in Brazil who had resisted the post-conciliar reforms under Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer.² The symbolism of such a meeting is evident.
What followed the audience, however, gives that symbolism its true meaning. The very next day, Archbishop Miguel Maury Buendía, the apostolic nuncio to Great Britain, informed the bishops of England and Wales that Pope Leo “does not intend to overturn Pope Francis’ limits on celebrating the traditional Latin Mass,” and would not abrogate Traditionis Custodes, but only grant two-year dispensations to those bishops who petition.³ A Vatican official clarified that these exemptions are not new but merely continue the existing practice of the Dicastery for Divine Worship.⁴ In parallel, a Vatican spokesman has told the press that under Pope Leo the overall policy on the older rite remains one of “continuity” rather than change.⁵
The sequence is therefore clear: a warm and courteous audience with the world’s only “traditional Mass bishop”, immediately followed by a public reaffirmation that the juridical regime of restriction remains in force. The gesture is real; the boundary is realer. Any reading which treats the Rifan audience as a harbinger of broad liberation ignores the plain chronology and the explicit statements of the nuncio and dicastery.
The Pope, the “Complicated” Question, and the Blame of Polarisation
Pope Leo himself has already framed the Traditional Latin Mass as a “complicated” matter. In a September interview, he remarked that when Catholics speak about “the Latin Mass,” they often forget that “you can say Mass in Latin right now” in the post-conciliar rite, and admitted that “between the Tridentine Mass and the Vatican II Mass, the Mass of Paul VI, I’m not sure where that’s going to go. It’s obviously very complicated.”⁶ In the same context he lamented that “people aren’t willing to listen to one another” and that the question had become ideological rather than an experience of ecclesial communion.⁷
The implication is familiar from the rhetoric accompanying Traditionis Custodes: division is largely blamed on those attached to the older rite, or at least on the polarisation supposedly arising around it. Yet as the Catholic Herald has recently observed, the Holy See’s messaging now deliberately “signals continuity on Latin Mass restrictions despite rumours” of relaxation, confirming that the basic restrictionist line has not shifted.⁵ The Rifan audience, in this light, appears less as a gesture toward reconciliation and more as a carefully circumscribed exercise in damage control: traditional communities are reassured of papal benevolence, while the legal framework that constrains them remains untouched.
What the Council Really Said: Latin, Chant, and Organic Growth
Much of the official justification for the continuing restriction of the older rite has been clothed in the language of Vatican II and its supposed “implementation.” Yet the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, speaks with a clarity that contrasts sharply with the liturgical reality imposed after the Council.
First, the Council taught that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”⁸ It also added that the faithful themselves should be able “to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”⁹ A legitimate space is opened for the vernacular, especially in readings and certain prayers, but the normative place of Latin is affirmed, not abolished.¹⁰
Second, Sacrosanctum Concilium declared that “the Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy; therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”¹¹ This principle was later reiterated in the 1967 instruction Musicam Sacram, which states that Gregorian chant has “pride of place” because it is “proper to the Roman liturgy.”¹²
Third, and crucially, the Council introduced the principle of organic development in Article 23: “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them, and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”¹³
Taken at face value, the Council envisaged a reform that retained Latin as normative, preserved chant as the primary music of the rite, and introduced no changes that were not organically connected to the existing Roman tradition. Post-conciliar experience has been the opposite: Latin has almost vanished from parish life, Gregorian chant is marginal, and the reformed books represent, in structure and text, a substantial break with the previous Missal. Serious liturgical historians across a range of perspectives have acknowledged that what followed the Council and what the Council actually mandated are not identical.¹⁴
Rupture or Continuity? Voices from Within the Church
This tension has been articulated with particular clarity by theologians and liturgical scholars who are hardly fringe figures. Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, famously wrote in his preface to Klaus Gamber’s study of the reform that “in place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy,” contrasting organic growth with a “fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”¹⁵ While defenders have argued about the exact scope of his criticism, the contrast he draws between a liturgy that grows and a liturgy that is made remains stark and deliberate.¹⁶
Dr Peter Kwasniewski, in a widely cited lecture marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Novus Ordo, argues that the Novus Ordo Missae “constitutes a rupture with fundamental elements of all liturgies of apostolic derivation” and therefore fails the Church’s duty “to receive, cherish, guard, and pass on the fruits of liturgical development.”¹⁷ In his book The Once and Future Roman Rite, he goes further, claiming that no one “striving for intellectual honesty” can regard the Novus Ordo as a true, organic expression of the Roman Church’s prayer, and that the traditional Latin liturgy alone fully embodies the Roman Rite’s lex orandi.¹⁸
Whatever nuances one may wish to introduce, these are not the words of marginal extremists but of scholars deeply formed in the Church’s tradition and, in Ratzinger’s case, at the very heart of the post-Conciliar hierarchy. Their testimony supports what many ordinary Catholics have intuited: the reformed liturgy does not organically unfold from the preceding tradition; it represents a decisive, and in many respects unprecedented, discontinuity.
Traditionis Custodes and the Manufactured Narrative of Division
Into this unresolved tension stepped Pope Francis’ 2021 motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, which imposed severe restrictions on the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal. The document justified itself largely on claims of division allegedly caused by traditional communities and by an improper questioning of Vatican II. The same narrative has been echoed by those who continue to defend the restrictions under Pope Leo.
Yet three years on, theologian Larry Chapp concludes that the motu proprio “has generated division, not unity.”¹⁹ In his commentary for the National Catholic Register he notes that “liturgical wars rage on” and bluntly states that there was “very little that was in any way ‘pastoral’ in Traditionis Custodes.”²⁰ In a subsequent reflection, he describes the document as “a failure of pastoral governance,” arguing that it attempted to resolve complex historical and theological questions by a simple act of authority that neither convinced its opponents nor healed any wounds.²¹
Chapp is not alone. Even some commentators who are otherwise supportive of post-Conciliar reforms have described Traditionis Custodes as a “solution for a problem that does not exist in any meaningful sense,” warning that it combats a straw-man image of the traditionalist movement and risks deepening fractures rather than healing them.²² The lived experience of the last few years bears this out: dioceses that have aggressively restricted the older rite have not seen a new era of harmony, while those that have quietly tolerated or even fostered it have not collapsed into schism.
The insistence that the traditional Mass is inherently divisive now appears, in light of such evidence, as a narrative more ideological than empirical. It is the enforcement of a contested reform, not the continued existence of the inherited rite, that has generated and sustained liturgical conflict.
The Real Origin of Division
If we trace cause and effect honestly, the crisis did not begin with Catholics who wished to continue worshipping as their forebears had done for centuries. It began when the previously universal form of the Roman Rite was effectively removed from ordinary parish life and replaced with a liturgy that, by design, departed from many of the traditional forms and expressions. That change—unlike previous adjustments in the Church’s history—was rapid, comprehensive, and centrally imposed.
The faithful attached to the traditional liturgy did not create a parallel Church; they tried to remain within the Church while retaining the form of worship that had shaped its theology and spirituality. The division was therefore introduced from above, by the suppression of continuity, and has been maintained by the persistent refusal to allow that continuity to flourish.
To say this is not to deny that some traditionalist rhetoric has been intemperate or that certain groups have cultivated a sectarian mentality. But these abuses are consequences of the crisis, not its cause. As Kwasniewski has pointed out, younger Catholics who discover the older liturgy “from outside” often see the Novus Ordo “for the wreckage it is,” precisely because they are less invested in the assumptions that produced it.²³ They did not choose the rupture. They inherited it, and many of them are now choosing against it in favour of continuity.
The Rifan Audience in the Light of This History
Within this broader context, the meeting between Pope Leo XIV and Bishop Rifan can be seen more clearly. It is a genuine sign of personal goodwill: the Pope receives a bishop whose entire ministry is dedicated to the Traditional Latin Mass; the bishop publicly professes “filial obedience” and assures the Holy Father that his community “preserves the liturgy in its ancient form, but in full communion with the Church.”²⁴ For the faithful of Campos and for many traditional Catholics worldwide, this is understandably heartening.
But the juridical and theological reality remains unchanged. The nuncio’s statement that Traditionis Custodes will not be abrogated, combined with the dicastery’s insistence that the present regime of exemptions is simply being continued, means that the older rite retains a tolerated but constrained existence.³ ⁴ The Vatican simultaneously affirms its willingness to meet traditional communities and its determination to limit their structural growth. The message is: you are recognised, but you are not fully welcome to flourish.
This is why the deeper issue cannot be reduced to papal tone or personal gestures. The unresolved tension is not primarily psychological or political; it is doctrinal and liturgical. As long as the Church continues to live with an official narrative of “continuity” that is contradicted by the plain text of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the manifest discontinuity of the post-conciliar books, the conflict will persist beneath the surface, no matter how many courteous audiences are granted.
The Path Toward Authentic Peace
Where, then, does genuine peace lie? Not in the indefinite suppression of the traditional liturgy, nor in the romanticisation of any particular historical moment, but in a sober return to the principles the Church herself enunciated: sound tradition retained; legitimate progress rooted in organic growth; Latin and chant preserved as proper to the Roman Rite; and the faithful encouraged to pray in continuity with the saints who have gone before.
This implies, in practice, that the Traditional Latin Mass cannot forever be treated as an anomaly to be managed. It is, as Kwasniewski has argued, the “once and future” Roman Rite, the liturgical form that uniquely and fully embodies Rome’s own lex orandi.¹⁸ That claim may be debated, but it cannot be dismissed by decree. It must be answered at the level of theology, history, and lived experience.
For now, under Pope Leo XIV, the Church stands in a posture of courtesy without reform: willing to meet Bishop Rifan, unwilling to remove the structural constraints that burden his flock and others like them. The audience at the Vatican is therefore both sign and warning. It shows that tradition cannot be erased from the Church’s life; it also shows that those who govern the Church remain committed to a settlement that many serious Catholic thinkers regard as unstable.
Until this contradiction is addressed—until the Church dares to admit that the rupture must be healed by a return to continuity—the wound will remain open. A truly Catholic peace will not be achieved by blaming the victims of rupture for the division created by those who imposed it. It will come when the Church once more allows herself to breathe with her own lungs: doctrine and worship, truth and beauty, tradition and legitimate development, all ordered to the glory of God.
- Niwa Limbu, “Pope has audience with bishop whose pastoral ministry exclusively dedicated to Latin Mass,” Catholic Herald, 17 November 2025. catholicherald.co.uk
- Ibid. (history of the Campos resistance and erection of the Personal Apostolic Administration in 2002 under John Paul II). catholicherald.co.uk
- Cindy Wooden, “Nuncio in Britain says pope won’t overturn restrictions on old Latin Mass,” Catholic News Service / USCCB, 14 November 2025. USCCB
- Ibid. (statement of Msgr Enda Murphy that the exemptions are a restatement of existing dicastery practice). USCCB
- Niwa Limbu, “Vatican signals continuity on Latin Mass restrictions despite rumours,” Catholic Herald, November 2025. The Catholic Herald+1
- “Pope Leo XIV talks about the Traditional Latin Mass,” interview excerpt reported at Rorate Cæli and OnePeterFive, 18–19 September 2025. rorate-caeli.blogspot.com+2OnePeterFive+2
- Limbu, “Pope has audience with bishop whose pastoral ministry exclusively dedicated to Latin Mass,” citing the Pope’s remarks about polarisation and ideology in his September interview. catholicherald.co.uk
- Sacrosanctum Concilium §36: “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” See Vatican text and standard commentaries. Vatican+1
- Sacrosanctum Concilium §54, as summarised in contemporary explanations of Vatican II’s teaching on Latin. cathparishmje.co.uk+1
- “Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 36,” Pray Tell blog, 7 March 2013, on the intended limited but real extension of vernacular. PrayTellBlog
- Sacrosanctum Concilium §116, cited in numerous discussions of Gregorian chant’s “pride of place.” forum.musicasacra.com+1
- Musicam Sacram (1967) §50, in English translation published by the Liturgy Office of England and Wales. liturgyoffice.org.uk
- Sacrosanctum Concilium §23, in English translation (Catholic Culture and related sources). catholicculture.org+1
- See, for example, C. Vagaggini and later syntheses such as C.V. Johnson, “From Organic Growth to Manufactured Liturgy?,” Theological Studies (2015), which examines the principle of organic growth in Benedict XVI’s thought. Theological Studies Journal+1
- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, preface to Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background (English ed., 1993), as cited in multiple summaries of the “fabricated liturgy” passage. extraordinaryform.org+1
- For discussion of the scope and interpretation of Ratzinger’s remark, see J. Pinyan, “The Target of Pope Benedict’s Criticism,” Pray Tell, 10 June 2012; and Sharon Kabel, “Catholic fact check: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and the fabricated liturgy,” 23 May 2021. sharonkabel.com+1
- Peter A. Kwasniewski, “Beyond ‘Smells and Bells’: Why We Need the Objective Content of the Usus Antiquior,” lecture text published at Rorate Cæli, 29 November 2019. rorate-caeli.blogspot.com+2rorate-caeli.blogspot.com+2
- Peter A. Kwasniewski, The Once and Future Roman Rite: Returning to the Traditional Latin Liturgy after Seventy Years of Exile (TAN Books, 2022), especially the argument summarised in the publisher’s preview that only the traditional Latin liturgy fully expresses the Roman Rite’s lex orandi. tanbooks.com+2tanbooks.com+2
- Larry Chapp, “ ‘Traditionis Custodes’ 3 Years On: Pope Francis’ Latin Mass ‘Motu Proprio’ Has Generated Division, Not Unity,” National Catholic Register, 8 July 2024. National Catholic Register+2ewtn.co.uk+2
- Larry Chapp, “A reflection on Traditionis Custodes on its three year anniversary,” Gaudium et Spes 22 blog, 8 July 2024: “There was very little that was in any way ‘pastoral’ in Traditionis Custodes.” gaudiumetspes22.com+2gaudiumetspes22.com+2
- Larry Chapp, “Sacrosanctum Concilium and the ongoing need for a reform of the liturgy,” National Catholic Register (linked via Gaudium et Spes 22, 23 July 2024), where Traditionis Custodes is described as a failure of pastoral governance. gaudiumetspes22.com+1
- See, for example, summary commentaries collected by The Catholic Thing and related outlets describing Traditionis Custodes as addressing a largely non-existent problem. The Catholic Thing+1
- Peter Kwasniewski, “Rebuilding Authentic Catholicism upon the Ruins of the 20th Century,” New Liturgical Movement, 13 May 2019, reflecting on younger Catholics’ perception of the reformed liturgy. newliturgicalmovement.org
- Limbu, “Pope has audience with bishop whose pastoral ministry exclusively dedicated to Latin Mass,” reporting Bishop Rifan’s description of the meeting and his affirmation of communion with Rome. catholicherald.co.uk
Latest
- Sermon for Easter SundayThe Revd Dr Robert Wilson reflects on the events leading to Easter, highlighting Jesus’ tragic betrayal and execution. He asserts that the resurrection is not merely a metaphor but signifies a pivotal moment that inaugurates a new era in Christian belief, contrasting modern reinterpretations with Orthodox Christianity’s understanding of objective truths about God and humanity.
- Today’s homily: Easter SundayThe homily from Revd Jerome Lloyd OSJV reflects on the significance of Christ’s Resurrection, emphasising it as a transformative reality rather than a mere reversal of death. It calls for believers to rise from sin and mediocrity, affirming that the Resurrection changes everything, and highlights that Easter is a condition of being, not just a day.
- Today’s Mass: April 5 Easter SundayEaster Sunday marks a triumphant celebration in the traditional Roman Rite, proclaiming Christ’s resurrection as the foundation of Christian hope. This festival transforms the Church’s atmosphere from Lent’s austerity to radiant joy, emphasising the Resurrection as a historical reality. The liturgy invites believers to live in the light of Christ’s victory over death.
- Holy Saturday: The Silence of the Tomb, the Descent into Hell, and the Expectation of ResurrectionHoly Saturday represents a profound paradox in the liturgical year, marked by silence and anticipation of Christ’s resurrection. While His body lies in the tomb, His soul descends to liberate the righteous from limbo. This day embodies a hidden yet powerful redemptive work, bridging the sorrow of Good Friday and the joy of Easter.
- The One Pasch: Sacrifice, Supper, and Consummation in the Pre-1955 Roman RiteThe traditional Roman Rite’s Sacred Triduum, prior to 1955, unfolds as one continuous sacrificial act encapsulating the Passover’s fulfilment in Christ. This liturgical journey moves from the institution of the Eucharist on Holy Thursday, through the crucifixion on Good Friday, to the resurrection’s revelation on Holy Saturday, emphasising unity in sacrifice and participation.
Leave a Reply