“He will not change
Traditionis Custodes. He will not revert to
Summorum Pontificum.” For Cardinal Arthur Roche, the future of the Traditional Latin Mass under Leo XIV is beyond doubt.
The Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments rules out any return to the measures taken by Benedict XVI in 2007 and defends the restrictions imposed by Francis in July 2021.
When questioned by journalist Thomas Edwards about the growing interest of young Catholics in the traditional liturgy, the cardinal did not seem to see this as a reason to reconsider Roman policy. On the contrary, he cited several recent interventions by Leo XIV, notably his words addressed to priests and religious at Notre-Dame de Paris, as well as his catecheses devoted to the conciliar constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium.
According to the cardinal, Leo XIV invites Catholics to transcend their personal preferences in order to preserve the unity of the Church, gathered "as a family, as a group, and not simply as individuals." But can attachment to the traditional Mass be reduced to a mere matter of taste?
Did the Bishops Request the Restrictions?
The interview revisits one of the main justifications put forward by Francis for promulgating Traditionis Custodes: the results of a consultation of bishops from around the world on the application of Benedict XVI's motu proprio.
In 2025, journalist Diane Montagna published documents showing that the majority of bishops who responded to the consultation did not recommend amending Summorum Pontificum. The journalist presented this contradiction to Cardinal Roche, who maintained that the bishops wanted changes. "I have no doubt about that, and I hear it constantly from the bishops," he replied, without elaborating on the documents that had been made public.
The prefect believes that traditionalist groups occupy a disproportionate place in the debates because they make much more noise than the rest of the Church and thus attract more media attention.
He then returns to Benedict XVI's intentions in 2007. According to him, Summorum Pontificum was primarily intended to foster a rapprochement with the Society of Saint Pius X, with a view to regularizing its canonical status. Since this objective was not achieved, the text was allegedly used in some regions to promote the older liturgy at the expense of the one stemming from the Council.
This interpretation, however, does not fully account for Benedict XVI's intentions. In his letter to the bishops of July 7, 2007, the Pope sought to foster reconciliation within the Church and reiterated that what had been sacred to previous generations remained sacred and great for present generations. But this openness had serious limitations: it remained contingent upon the full acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, doctrinal conditions unacceptable to the Society of Saint Pius X.
Cardinal Roche is not concerned with such nuances. For him, adherence to the Council brooks no resistance. And he warns: "If one rejects it, if one resists, one moves away from the heart of Catholicism."
The journalist then asked the cardinal if he would advise the faithful attached to the traditional rite to also attend the new Mass. "You shouldn't attend this Mass exclusively, I think," replied the prelate.
He then recounts his conversations with groups of traditional Catholics. Some criticized Pope Francis for his perceived lack of goodwill towards them. The cardinal retorts that they always have the option of celebrating according to the old rite, before asking them: "What is your problem? What more do you want?" According to him, his interlocutors generally don't know how to answer.
The prefect nevertheless believes that certain traditionalist circles desire, as he discerns in their online publications, a church that would not be bound to the Second Vatican Council. He therefore invites all Catholics, regardless of their beliefs, to examine their consciences in light of Church teaching rather than according to their personal preferences. It is a peculiar appeal, when it is precisely the breaks of Vatican II with traditional Church teaching that are at issue. This examination of conscience may well begin in Rome.
The cardinal invokes two encyclicals of Pius XII, Mystici Corporis and Mediator Dei, which he presents as the foundations of the conciliar constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. But while this constitution did not openly break with Catholic doctrine, the reform subsequently developed by the Consilium of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini went far beyond the intentions expressed by the Council Fathers. Archbishop Athanasius Schneider recently reiterated this point, emphasizing that the draft presented in 1967 had been rejected by the majority of the Synod Fathers. Yet it is this reform, promulgated by Paul VI in 1969 and marked by a spirit of ecumenism, that Cardinal Roche presents, through a veritable sleight of hand, as the natural continuation of Pius XII's teaching.
The journalist then emphasizes the vitality of communities attached to the traditional Mass, particularly among young people. He points out that these communities possess a solid understanding of the Eucharistic mystery and a frequent practice of confession. Why shouldn't the Church seek to encourage this movement?
The cardinal responded by asking whether the same attitudes were not also found among the faithful of the new Mass. He refused to acknowledge any significant difference in religious practice. "Is the level of faith different? I haven't seen it. As a pastor, I've never seen it," he stated.
Was Latin Really Preserved After the Council?
Thomas Edwards also questioned the cardinal about the discrepancy between certain prescriptions of Sacrosanctum Concilium and their application in the following decades.
The conciliar constitution stipulated, among other things, that the use of Latin be preserved in Latin rites and reiterated that no priest could, on his own initiative, add, remove, or modify anything in the liturgy. These prescriptions, however, have scarcely withstood the upheavals that followed the Council.
Cardinal Roche rejects the idea that the missal promulgated by Paul VI in 1969 could be considered unfaithful to the conciliar prescriptions. He speaks of a "misinterpretation." He even asserts that during his 51 years as a priest and 25 years as a bishop, he has never encountered a diocese where the elements required by the Council were absent.
To illustrate his point, he cites Bishop Gordon Wheeler of Leeds, who had requested that, after the Council, the new Mass be celebrated in Latin every Sunday in at least one church in each deanery. This is a rather isolated example in the face of the almost complete disappearance of Latin from parish life throughout the Catholic world and the proliferation of liturgical innovations. It's difficult to deny reality any further.
For the cardinal, the reform in no way altered the nature of the Mass. He maintains that its fundamental structure remained identical and that the new missal was enriched by ancient liturgical sources that were unavailable at the time of the codification of the Roman Rite in the 16th century. But this defense completely ignores the serious doctrinal ambiguities introduced by the reform, notably the erosion of the sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Mass in favor of a conception closer to Protestant theology.
"Fifteen Minutes, From one Friend to Another"
The interview then takes a more personal turn. The journalist observes that Cardinal Roche's generation grew up with the conviction that the Second Vatican Council ushered in a new era for the Church. Today, conversely, many young Catholics are looking back to the pre-Conciliar liturgy and wish to return to it.
The cardinal accepts this parallel and recounts a childhood memory from when he was an altar server. A priest, Fr. Quinton, would give him this instruction before celebrating Mass: "Remember, 15 minutes, from amice to amice." The allotted time thus included not only the celebration of Mass, but also the time needed to put on and take off the priestly vestments.
With this anecdote, the cardinal intends to remind people that traditional Masses were not always celebrated with the solemnity that some faithful associate with them today. He adds that sung Masses and High Masses with a deacon and subdeacon were rare in most English parishes.
But using the hasty celebrations of some priests to discredit the traditional Mass is a fallacy: the celebrant's negligence in no way calls into question the rite itself. Above all, this anecdote sidesteps the real problem: the serious doctrinal ambiguities of the new rite, regardless of how it is celebrated.
The prefect continued his defense of the reform by invoking St. Paul and the liturgical disturbances that occurred in the Corinthian community. The Apostle, he reminded them, transmitted what he himself had received from the Lord. He emphasized the unity of the Church around the Eucharist, asserting that it "is not something one can choose at will." This voluntarist call for institutional unity overlooked the very reason for the Church's existence: to transmit in its entirety the faith received from the Apostles, of which the liturgy is itself the expression. What good is it to demand ecclesial unity when one betrays its foundation?
The cardinal also recalled a previous interview with The Tablet, in which he was asked if attending Mass every Sunday was necessary to be Catholic. He answered in the affirmative. Catholicism, he explained, is not merely an intellectual concept. It engages the entire life of the believer. He concluded that someone who only practices it when it suits them, "that is not Catholicism. That is Protestantism."
This is undeniably ironic: the cardinal denounces Protestantism while simultaneously defending a liturgical reform deeply marked by its influence. And the obligation to attend Sunday Mass cannot be used as a pretext to impose on the faithful a liturgy that jeopardizes their faith.
The Society of Saint Pius X: "They Have No Jurisdiction"
The interview also addresses the situation of the Society of Saint Pius X, against which Cardinal Roche levels several accusations. When questioned about the possibility of canonical regularization, the prefect asserts that a path remains open, before reiterating that every Christian must convert daily, including himself. This is yet another way of reducing the difficulties between Rome and the Society to a matter of personal disposition, without addressing the doctrinal differences that lie at the heart of the problem.
The tone hardened when the journalist questioned him about the validity of confessions and marriages celebrated by priests of the Society. When asked if he considered these sacraments invalid, the cardinal replied without hesitation: “Yes. Because they have no jurisdiction, they have no authority.” It is a peremptory condemnation that completely ignored both the concessions granted by Rome and the canonical arguments on which the Society bases its ministry.
In 2015, on the occasion of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, Pope Francis granted priests of the Society of Saint Pius X the faculty to validly and licitly absolve the faithful. By the Apostolic Letter Misericordia et misera , published on November 20, 2016, he extended this faculty indefinitely. In April 2017, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei also established provisions allowing local ordinaries to grant the necessary delegations to attend the weddings of the faithful who frequent the Society's chapels.
But the episcopal consecrations of July 1, 2026, provoked a new Roman offensive. The following day, a decree of excommunication was issued against the bishops involved, while a note from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith purported to call into question the validity of confessions and marriages celebrated by priests of the Society.
However, the Society first contests the excommunications themselves: the consecrations were performed out of necessity, in order to ensure the transmission of the priesthood and the safeguarding of the faith. On July 11, it filed a canonical appeal against the decree, invoking its suspensive effect under canon 1353. As for the faculties granted by Francis for hearing confessions , this claim encounters a major canonical obstacle: the faculties in question were granted by the Pope himself. A note from a dicastery, lacking specific papal approval, cannot abrogate them.
But even if these concessions were revoked, the SSPX would simply find itself back in the previous situation, with the same canonical foundations it has always invoked: the jurisdiction of substitution for confessions, due to the state of necessity of souls, and the extraordinary provisions of Church law for marriages, when the required conditions are met.
Cardinal Roche is well aware of this position. He himself recalls the faculties granted by Francis during the Year of Mercy, which he praises for their generosity, but criticizes the Society for having asserted that its confessions were already valid beforehand. "Either one believes in the Church or one does not," he declares.
The accusation misses the mark. The Society of Saint Pius X recognizes the authority of the Supreme Pontiff and his power to grant sacramental faculties, but it also points out that Church law itself provides for exceptional measures to ensure the salvation of souls. Invoking these measures in the face of a crisis that threatens the faith and sacramental life of the faithful is not a denial of the Pope's authority.
Rather than discussing this state of necessity, the cardinal simply asserts his authority. He then recounts that he himself confesses every two weeks at St. Peter's Basilica, where he waits his turn among the penitents. It is difficult to see the connection to the validity of the sacraments administered by the priests of the Society, and even less so the relevance of such a confidence in this canonical debate.
The Quran at Mass: Liturgical Abuse or Desecration?
The journalist then questioned the prefect about liturgical abuses, presenting him with another controversial topic: a back-to-school mass celebrated at the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium, during which a passage from the Quran was chanted and the homily delivered by a layperson. According to the university, these initiatives had been undertaken in consultation with the local bishops.
This time, Cardinal Roche is not seeking to defend the celebration at all. He considers these practices "completely erroneous," seeing in them a misunderstanding of the nature of the Mass and a liturgy remodeled according to social adaptations and fashions devoid of theological foundation.
But can the introduction of the Quran into the heart of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass be reduced to mere "erroneous" practices? It constitutes a grave profanation of the liturgy, all the more scandalous as it has been established in Leuven for nearly ten years with the assent of ecclesiastical authorities, without any sanctions being imposed to put an end to it. What a contrast with the rigor displayed by Rome against Catholics who intend to preserve the traditional liturgy to safeguard their faith!
Five Years in the Service of Conciliar Reform
Asked to reflect on his years at the head of the Dicastery for Divine Worship, the prelate cites among his best memories the privilege of having worked with two popes on the implementation of the liturgical reform stemming from the Second Vatican Council.
The cardinal has now submitted his resignation due to age, but does not consider his mission complete. He remains a member of several Roman dicasteries and intends to continue exercising his priestly ministry as long as his strength allows. "A vocation is not a job. It is a way of life," he affirms.
Cardinal Roche's departure is unlikely to significantly alter the Roman position. The prefect assures that Leo XIV will not reverse Traditionis Custodes, while his statements on the Society of Saint Pius X show that the offensive against the traditional Mass is part of a much deeper doctrinal conflict.
There remains a question far more serious than that of his succession: how far will Rome go to stifle the mass it has celebrated for centuries, without daring to pronounce a formal ban, which would be illegitimate?
.jpg)
.jpg)
-1.jpg)
-1.jpg)
-1.jpg)
-1.jpg)
-1.jpg)