 |
| (source) |
Lex Orandi and Ecclesial Rupture: A Brief Theological and Canonical Critique of Article 1 of Traditionis Custodes
(by Simon de Cyrène at the Croce-Via blog; translated for Rorate Caeli)
Summary: This short article critically analyzes Article 1 of the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes (2021), which states that the liturgical books reformed by Paul VI and John Paul II constitute “the only expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”
This statement, if interpreted as exclusive and binding, implies an objective break with the organic liturgical Tradition of the Church, contradicts previous magisterium, and introduces a theologically unstable principle: the obsolescence of previous liturgical forms that have expressed the Catholic faith for centuries. This essay shows how this position can generate a form of latent schism, not on the part of those who preserve the traditional liturgy, but on the part of those who deny its ecclesial and theological legitimacy.
1. Introduction: unprecedented and destabilizing
Article 1 of the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, promulgated by Pope Francis on July 16, 2021, introduces a principle never before expressed in such absolute terms in the recent history of the magisterium:
“The liturgical books promulgated by the Holy Fathers Paul VI and John Paul II [...] are the only expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”
This statement does not merely regulate the use of the Missal of St. Pius V (1962 edition), but implicitly excludes it from the very definition of the official prayer of the Latin Church. This raises an essential question: can a new liturgical reform, however authoritative, declare itself the sole bearer of the lex orandi, relegating the previous one to an outdated, tolerated, or theologically surpassed expression? And if so, what are the doctrinal, canonical, and communal implications of such an exclusion?
2. The lex orandi as a binding theological principle
Already in the patristic centuries, the lex orandi was recognized as the normative expression of the lex credendi. Prosper of Aquitaine summarized it as follows: ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi—the law of prayer establishes the law of faith. This is not a devotional formula, but a dogmatic principle: liturgy is not an ornament of faith, but its manifestation and vehicle.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in no. 1124: “The faith of the Church precedes the faith of the believer, who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the Apostles.”
The liturgy is therefore part of the Apostolic Tradition: every form of it that is approved, transmitted, and lived in the Church constitutes not only a ritual modality but a theological locus. To eliminate a venerable form such as the Tridentine rite, denying it the dignity of the current lex orandi, means undermining the organic nature of Tradition.
3. The previous magisterium: organic development, not replacement
The principle of the “organic development” of the liturgy has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the recent magisterium.
3.1 Pius XII – Mediator Dei (1947): “The liturgy cannot be considered either as a museum to be preserved or as a laboratory for experimentation. It grows like a tree from the root of the apostolic faith.”
3.2 John XXIII – Rubricarum Instructum (1960): “We confirm and order that what Tradition has received and handed down with veneration be kept intact.”
3.3 Benedict XVI – Letter Accompanying Summorum Pontificum (2007): “What was sacred for previous generations remains sacred and great for us too, and cannot suddenly be forbidden or judged harmful.”
All previous reforms, up to that of John XXIII, are justified not by a break but by continuity: what is adapted, simplified, or restored always remains within the development of Tradition. No Pope has ever claimed that the reform abolished the theological validity of the previous form.
4. Systemic contradiction: if today it is no longer the lex orandi, yesterday it never was
If it is claimed that the Tridentine Mass is no longer an expression of the lex orandi today, one is forced to conclude:
- either that the Church has for centuries expressed a liturgically deficient or unsuitable faith;
- or that faith can be expressed in mutually exclusive forms;
- or that the current criterion prevails over the one handed down, transforming the Tradition into a contingent decision. As Joseph Ratzinger wrote: “In liturgy, what was true before cannot become false afterwards.” (Ratzinger Report, 1985)
- The risk, then, is that of introducing a hermeneutic of rupture, in which the faith of the Church is no longer the organic guardian of the deposit received, but an authoritative reformulation according to the pastoral criteria of the moment.
5. Risk of liturgical schism: diachronic, not synchronic
Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law defines schism as “refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” However, one can also hypothesize a form of diachronic liturgical schism, that is, a break between the Church of today and the Church of yesterday, if one denies that what was lex orandi for centuries can still be so.
In this case, it is not those who celebrate according to Tradition who place themselves outside communion, but those who deny that Tradition is still alive and legitimate. As Alcuin Reid wrote: “A Church that contradicts itself in worship contradicts itself in its identity” (The Organic Development of the Liturgy, 2004). And Benedict XVI:“Liturgical divisions often precede doctrinal ones, because the lex orandi precedes the lex credendi.”
Denying the liturgical legitimacy of the 1962 Missal, without formally declaring it heretical or invalid, produces a silent but profound fracture.
6. Canonical and theological consequences of Article 1
6.1 Papal authority and its limits
The Pope enjoys full authority in liturgical matters (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22), but not in an arbitrary manner. The First Vatican Council (Pastor Aeternus) states:“The Holy Spirit was not promised to Peter’s successors so that they might manifest a new doctrine, but so that they might sacredly guard and faithfully explain the Revelation handed down.”
6.2 Validity, lawfulness, and marginalization of the ancient rite
The 1962 Missal is valid, orthodox, and has never been formally abrogated. Article 1 of Traditionis Custodes does not declare it invalid or heretical, but it does deprive it of normative relevance. This generates a form of ecclesial suspension: what is valid is no longer an expression of communion.
6.3 Visible unity and ritual plurality
The unity of the Church is not achieved through liturgical uniformity, but through communion in truth. The coexistence of different rites (e.g., Eastern Catholic, Ambrosian, Dominican, etc.) has never affected ecclesial unity. Why then deny this plurality within the Roman Rite?
The Monophysites also separated because of liturgical disputes. The East-West Schism was fostered by innovations in the Latin Creed and worship (e.g., Filioque). History teaches that radical liturgical changes, not anchored in Tradition, can generate lasting fractures. In the current case, the declaration in Article 1, if taken as absolute, establishes a fracture between the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar lex orandi, creating a hiatus in continuity that no authority can legitimize without contradicting its own identity.
Article 1 of Traditionis Custodes, as it is formulated, introduces an ecclesiological and liturgical distortion that risks undermining confidence in the stability of the faith celebrated. Liturgical reform cannot become the exclusive criterion of catholicity. True reform does not eliminate but integrates. It does not declare previous forms obsolete, but interprets them in the light of the one Mystery.
Resistance to this logic of exclusion is not disobedience, but the exercise of the sensus fidei fidelium. It asks us not to deny what has formed the holiness, doctrine, and culture of the Church for centuries. It is a fidelity that does not oppose the Pope, but calls him back to the sacred bond of the Apostolic Tradition.
Response: Even though it is formulated as a disciplinary act, Article 1 has theological implications because it declares that only one form (the Novus Ordo) is the sole expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. The lex orandi, being an expression of the lex credendi, is not a functional tool of pastoral care, but a theological locus. Replacing it inevitably implies that the previous form no longer adequately expresses the faith of the Church. This goes beyond the scope of a simple disciplinary norm and slips into an implicit doctrinal contradiction.
Response: The unity of the Church is not achieved through uniformity, but through communion in truth. The Roman Rite has experienced internal plurality for centuries (Dominican, Ambrosian, Carthusian rites, etc.), without this undermining ecclesial unity. If Article 1 imposes absolute liturgical exclusivity, it interrupts the organic nature of Tradition, replacing a principle of received fidelity with a vision of “unity by decree.” The hermeneutic of reform cannot disregard the hermeneutic of continuity.
Response: Yes, but his authority is vicarious and not absolute. As taught by Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), the Pope does not receive the Holy Spirit to reveal new doctrines, but to faithfully guard and explain Revelation. Even the liturgical authority of the Pontiff is subordinate to received Tradition: he can regulate but may not arbitrarily abolish forms approved and sanctified by centuries of use and the lives of the saints.
Response: This distinction does not hold in the case of the liturgy. Since the lex orandi is a theological locus, any normative exclusion has implicit doctrinal implications. If it is said that only the new rite expresses the faith of the Church today, it is implicitly declared that the previous rite no longer expresses it: but this implies a judgment of content, not just of practice. Catholic theology cannot accept that an orthodox rite, approved for centuries, should now be downgraded as theologically inadequate, without breaking with Tradition.
