The following two letters (no. 1307 and no. 1354) from Paix Liturgique were published on November 20, 2025 and April 9, 2026. It is well worth giving them wider diffusion, especially in light of the outrageous proposal of the abbot of Solesmes. —PAK
Since the Muslim religion has spread exponentially in France, it is clear that the French Republic is experiencing great difficulty in establishing a constructive space for dialogue with Islam. Various initiatives, under Sarkozy, Hollande, and Macron, have ended in more or less resounding failures. Of course, the organizational complexity of Islam has played a role in this outcome. In fact, until now, one of the major obstacles to the viability of a truly representative council for Muslims in France lies precisely in… its lack of representativeness. What authority can a French Council of the Muslim Faith or a proposed National Committee of Imams have if neither enjoys recognized legitimacy among the majority of French Muslim believers?
While Leo XIV, in an interview with American journalist Elise Ann Allen published last summer, alluded to the possibility of resorting to synodality as a possible solution to the thorny and painful problem of the restrictions imposed on the traditional liturgy, speculation has been rife ever since regarding concrete prospects for liturgical appeasement. The new norms established in 2021 by Traditionis Custodes, as is no longer a secret in Rome or throughout the Catholic world, far from calming the hearts, have only sown confusion among a great many baptized. The decisions contained in this text, unnecessarily vexatious and objectively problematic from the perspective of the most basic charity, have placed Church leaders in an uncomfortable and sometimes unpleasant position.
From the standpoint of the bishops, how can they not implement Traditionis Custodes without appearing disobedient to Rome? Conversely, how can Traditionis Custodes be implemented without needlessly persecuting the faithful who simply wish to live their faith according to the ancient liturgy? Some bishops, mindful of what Benedict XVI said about the Tridentine Rite: “What was sacred to previous generations remains great and sacred to us, and cannot suddenly become completely forbidden, or even considered harmful,” have clearly understood that explaining such a change of course is akin to trying to square the circle.
For the superiors of the communities still known as Ecclesia Dei, one can easily imagine the pain of once again being subjected to suspicion within the Catholic Church, when their energies were, on the contrary, dedicated to its service. How can this text be criticized without adding fuel to the fire? How can the faithful be reassured and still preserve their communion with them? How, more pragmatically, can one simply survive when so many bishops are all too happy to apply Traditionis Custodes with a zeal never seen before when the question was the implementation of Benedict XVI’s Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum?
However, regarding this uncomfortable and sometimes unpleasant situation, let us state it here: the truly forgotten are the faithful themselves. Since the beginning of the liturgical reform and the serious upheavals associated with it, the faithful have been plunged into an abyss of incomprehension. Here, the indefensible is permitted, while there, what is proper is forbidden. Here, a bishop claims he is merely applying the new norms (while perhaps making their best effort to avoid acting with that authentic and noble inner freedom that sometimes makes one stand up and say “No!”), there, a priest of Ecclesia Dei tries to stay afloat by preserving the fragile edifice of the apostolate he serves. At what price? Most often, by holding back, for fear of having their ministry forbidden, by express order of the diocese, while being accused of an excess of initiative or an excess of orthodoxy…
In both cases, however, it is the families who find themselves held hostage. To put it more precisely, they become, at their own expense, the victims of a cruel farce made up of unbalanced power dynamics and a distorted sensus fidei.
Thus, what a surprise it was for many faithful attached to the Tridentine Rite to discover, as the recent rumor goes, that a delegation of abbots was being formed at the initiative of Cardinal Sarah’s publisher, Mr. Nicolas Diat, with a view to representing the traditionalist world before Pope Leo XIV. Would thus Fontgombault, Triors, and Lagrasse surround Cardinal Sarah in order to represent the faithful attached to the old form at the highest level?
While everyone is perfectly free to express their thoughts and possibly propose solutions to the liturgical problem as they see it, in this specific case, the method used is surprising. Indeed, if there is one mode of governance completely alien to the realities of the current world, it is religious life. And if there are privileged havens that have not experienced the liturgical vexations we have known of since Traditionis Custodes, it is these abbeys.
Moreover, these monastic communities, considering their history and in view of the personalities of their current abbots, demonstrate a greater inclination to celebrate Mass in both rites than to consider the complaints of the faithful outside the cloisters, deprived of sacraments and urged to make amends for their liturgical preference. We saw the abbot of Fontgombault publicly oppose the organization of private Masses during the pilgrimage of Notre-Dame de Chrétienté, while his pronouncements are notably more timid when it comes to lamenting the liturgical purge and rehab against the Mass of Saint Pius V implemented in many dioceses of France.
Since Paix Liturgique has begun its activities, we have consistently reiterated that traditionalism cannot be understood without recognizing that it is since the beginning, and still is nowadays, the story of a wound and an injustice. It must not be forgotten that the faithful attached to the former liturgy were mercilessly mocked, excluded, ridiculed, caricatured, and ultimately confined to a kind of Indian reservation—a tactic by which the bishops of France and elsewhere thought they could resolve the issue of the survival of the Tridentine Rite.
Today, what will become of Leo XIV’s laudable desire to emerge from this painful history in a positive way, within and for the Church? Let us be very clear: this resolution to the crisis requires acknowledging this reality as the basis for dialogue. If the stakeholders in this synodal dialogue, both on behalf of the Church institutions as well as on the part of those abbots, deem it preferable to discreetly let a chaste veil fall over this original wound and injustice, then the beginnings of a way out of the crisis will remain at the stage of wishful thinking, as they have for fifty years. And, as we know, wishful thinking has this exasperating quality: it is always useless and a waste of time.
Moreover, the question of the liturgical reform is closely linked to that of a particularly detestable clericalism. In the Church in France, for example, there is a forum for dialogue between two bishops representing the French Episcopal Conference (CEF) and the superiors of traditional priestly communities. Unfortunately, there is no equivalent official forum for dialogue with lay people committed to defending the traditional liturgy. Could this be because these faithful are less susceptible to fear or pressure from Church authorities? The importance of the laity’s role, though emphasized in contemporary discourse within the Church, is reduced to nothing when it comes to the faithful attached to the Traditional Latin Mass. Their role is limited to the well-known maxim: “Pray, Pay, and Obey.” A fatal error of perspective! The laity’s commitment stems from the absolute necessity of passing on the faith to their children.
This is why, because we love the Church (and we certainly don’t claim to be the only ones!), we yearn for a genuine dialogue between the Roman Catholic authorities and representatives who truly embody the traditional ecosystem: that is, faithful dedicated to the transmission of Tradition and the Church’s constant teaching. We are ready to forgive the abuses of power and the malicious acts to which our spiritual family has been subjected. In truth, following Péguy’s example, “we have no taste for the profession of arms,” and we entrust to Our Lady our aspirations “for great peace and disarmament.” But it is still necessary that we, the faithful, be able to bear witness, in that holy parrhesia praised by Pope Francis himself, to the concrete realities of our Christian lives as Catholics committed to the traditional pedagogies of the faith.
These committed laypeople, representing the large cohort of silent individuals attached to the traditional Mass, will be able, without any difficulty, and very respectfully, to bring up all the baptisms forbidden for their children when they nevertheless try to found Christian families, speak of the churches whose doors this or that cleric refuses to open for their wedding, whereas they are open to Protestants or to concerts with dubious melodies and irreverent lyrics, recount the adventure of the schools they have founded in order to transmit their faith to their descendants, the sacrifices they costed them and how that did not prevent the episcopal arrogance from falling upon them, when it is not a matter of shameless bad faith.
Yes, better than abbots, these faithful on the ground, with their feet planted into the mud of the world, can also bear witness, in a positive way, to the admirable influence of the Tridentine liturgy on their souls, the souls of their friends, and the converts they know, and who are always younger and more numerous. These lay representatives of the traditional universe run schools, create scout groups and youth clubs, organize formation evenings, offer spiritual conferences, coordinate Gregorian chant sessions, gather goods for the poor, and fill adoration vigils. Yes, these committed faithful can show the Roman hierarchy, with factual documentation, the extent of the contradictions they encounter in their dioceses, solely for the reason of preferring the traditional ecosystem with its demanding, transcendent, and coherent spiritual nourishment.
With Pope Leo XIV, there are excellent reasons to hope for the resuming of the dialogue. That some group or other may wish to be able to express itself is one thing. But for a certain group to have the pretension of representing the whole is to risk a delegation that is not only partial or rigged, but also—with all due respect—disconnected.
We are determined not to waste time, a time which is precious for liturgical peace. In order to move beyond preconceived notions and empty rhetoric, we cannot avoid an exchange based on the realities and daily lives of the faithful, with that freedom of expression that is inherent to them. Why? Because this exchange between the Pope and the faithful, between the Sovereign Pontiff and the humblest members of the Church, will be the most beautiful testimony of a father who is willing to listen to the suffering of his children in order to be able to find them the best remedy.
What is the right kind of integration?
Letter no. 1354 of Paix Liturgique
Proposal of the Abbot of Solesmes: Integrate the Traditional Mass into the New Missal. Our Counterproposal: Integrate the Traditional Mass into the Parishes
In these days of the Resurrection, I would like to present a proposal that many will consider utopian, but which is actually extremely serious. I believe, in fact, that it would be the beginning of a resurrection for our afflicted Mother, the Church of God.
Everyone knows that Dom Geoffroy Kemlin, Benedictine Abbot of Solesmes, made a suggestion to the Pope, which preceded the latter’s invitation to the French bishops to reflect upon solutions which might allow to heal the wound of the liturgical crisis.
It is possible that Dom Kemlin’s proposal arose from conversations between certain prelates, superiors of communities celebrating the Vetus Ordo, such as the abbots of Fontgombault, Lagrasse, and Triors, and Cardinal Sarah, all having been asked the Cardinal’s editor, Nicolas Diat, to submit proposals to the Pope, under the patronage of the Substitute for General Affairs of the Secretariat of State, Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra (see here).
Dom Kemlin’s solution, outlined in a letter to the Pope on November 12, 2025, can be summarized in these three sentences that we find therein: “It would simply consist of inserting the old Ordo Missae into the Missale Romanum (possibly revised minimally to adapt it to the Second Vatican Council, in particular allowing, for those who so wish, the use of the vernacular, concelebration, and the four Eucharistic Prayers), leaving the new Ordo Missae unchanged. Both Ordines Missae would thus form part of the single Roman Missal. Instead of dividing and rejecting, this solution would allow for the inclusion and acceptance of the faithful attached to the old Missal, without offending or alienating those who are attached to the new Ordo.”
It should be noted from the outset that this proposal is part of an ongoing series of “solutions” that have emerged following the rejection of liturgical reform by a sector of the Catholic world. These solutions present alternatives that, if implemented, would add a third rite, a hybrid rite, to the old and the new.
Now, the boldest point of Kemlin’s solution—integrating the old missal within the new missal—is immediately followed by a caveat that in fact nullifies the value of this integration: the old rite would be “minimally revised to adapt it to the Second Vatican Council.” And, somewhat naively, the explanation is as follows: this “unchanged” missal would be open to the vernacular, to concelebration, and to the four Eucharistic Prayers. In short, we would have an old missal, but with options, and consequently, an explosion of diversified practices in different chapels, communities, and parishes where the new missal is used: here the celebrant would use the old missal with the Eucharistic Prayer II, there the priests of the community would concelebrate, and so forth.
For my part, I would present a counterproposal. It is not actually new, since I have formulated it in various ways, but I formalize it here. It would consist of integrating the traditional missal—and actually the entire traditional liturgy, since Dom Kemlin omits the sacraments, the Divine Office, blessings, and funerals—not into the new missal, but into the parishes where Mass is usually celebrated according to the new missal.
This is, in fact, what a considerable number of parishioners in “ordinary” parishes desire, as demonstrated by numerous surveys conducted by Paix Liturgique, also confirmed by Stephen Bullivant and Stephen Cranney, sociologists specializing in the study of the faithful of the traditional liturgy, who were recently received by the Pope (Letter Paix Liturgique 1344, March 18, 2026). In a study published in 2024, half of the Catholics interviewed expressed their interest in being able to attend Mass according to the traditional Roman rite.
Therefore, it would be appropriate for the traditional Mass to be celebrated freely in each parish, especially on Sundays, either by decision of the parish priest or at the request of the parishioners, together with the other Sunday Masses, but at a time which might prove convenient for families. Furthermore, the faithful would be able to receive all the other sacraments according to their wishes from the parish priests or other priests whom the parish priest might invite for that purpose. Of course, this would not prevent the existence of chapels, churches, and various places of worship dedicated exclusively to the traditional liturgy.
In short, my solution is not only a counterproposal to Dom Kemlim’s Universal Missal, but also to the ordinariate of Father Louis-Marie de Blignières, through which he seeks to protect the traditional liturgy within a structure that one would have to join in order to attend or celebrate it.
Needless to say, my solution, based on the freedom of the traditional liturgy to which we must aspire, would offer this currently confined liturgy an unprecedented opportunity for expansion. A utopia? No, rather an act of hope. The risen Lord, who conquered death and rose triumphantly from the tomb, cannot but ensure, according to the will of his mysterious Providence, that his Church may rise again, along with its immutable doctrine, and its holy liturgy.
