On June 29, 2026, Pope Leo XIV addressed a letter to Cardinal Arthur Roche, prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, on the occasion of a liturgical conference held at Mount Angel Abbey in Oregon. The text, as reported by AdVaticanum, recalls Pope Francis’s Desiderio Desideravi and reiterates the need for ongoing liturgical formation, for both clergy and laity, defined as indispensable for “revitalizing the liturgical life of the universal Church.” 

The document did not go unnoticed, not so much for the general theme of liturgical formation — already extensively covered by Francis — but for a specific passage that directly challenges the never-ending question of the traditional Latin Mass and the restrictions imposed by Traditionis Custodes.

The key passage of the letter

In the letter, Pope Leo states that those responsible for preparing the liturgy, “and priests in particular,” must show respect for “the rites promulgated by Pope St. Paul VI and Pope St. John Paul II.” The Pontiff explicitly links this respect to “sincere fidelity to ecclesial communion,” reiterating a concept already expressed in his May 27 catechesis on Sacrosanctum Concilium. In that catechesis, Pope Leo had said that respect for the rites must spring from “an interior attitude of openness and trust in God, which manifests humility before his greatness and sincere fidelity to ecclesial communion.”

This is not a neutral expression: the nominal reference to the two pontiffs who promulgated the reformed Roman Rite almost literally echoes the formulation used by Francis in the motu proprio of July 16, 2021, which established that the liturgical books promulgated by Paul VI and John Paul II constitute “the sole expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” It is precisely this lexical coincidence that has sparked interpretations.

Reading Silere non possum: a confirmation of Roche’s words

According to Silere non possum, this passage finally offers documentary confirmation of what Cardinal Roche had publicly declared at the end of July in an interview with The Tablet, when he affirmed that Leo XIV would not modify Traditionis Custodes nor would he return to the regime of Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum.

For the site, the chronological sequence would be eloquent in itself: first, the May 27 catechesis on the need to safeguard liturgical texts, then the June 29 letter to Roche with explicit reference to the rites promulgated by Paul VI and John Paul II, and finally — at the end of July — the prefect’s statement to The Tablet. In this reading, Roche would have merely made public a direction the Pope had already personally entrusted to him in writing a month earlier. The site goes so far as to argue that the ecclesiological framework of the letter “coincides with that on which the discipline desired by Francis is based,” thus supporting its editorial line, already in favor of a restrictive reading of the papal intentions regarding the ancient Mass, and harshly dismissing as unreliable the opposing reconstructions circulating on other blogs.

The reading of AdVaticanum: a call to celebratory dignity, not a pronouncement on Traditionis Custodes

AdVaticanum itself offers a different interpretation, urging against overinterpreting the text in its original article. For the site, the Pope’s call for fidelity “to the approved texts and instructions” should be read alongside the emphasis placed on the ars celebrandi, which should promote an ever-deeper understanding of the liturgy on the part of both the celebrant and the entire assembly. The result, it states, is “a clear invitation to celebrate Masses according to the books and instructions approved by the Church, with dignity,” rather than through personalized or improvised approaches.

AdVaticanum also emphasizes that Leo XIV, in his letter, makes no mention at all of the traditional Latin Mass, thus leaving open the question of how his pontificate intends to address the most ancient form of the Roman Rite. From this perspective, the reference to the rites of Paul VI and John Paul II would be above all a call for dignity and fidelity in the celebration of the reformed Rite — that is, the Novus Ordo, already in use in the vast majority of parishes — not a pronouncement on the discipline relating to the 1962 Missal (Latin Mass). Niwa Limbu, also on AdVaticanum, had already urged caution regarding journalistic reconstructions that too directly link the Pope’s actions and words to a rigid line on Traditionis Custodes, while also pointing out a possible inconsistency between this interpretation and other signals, such as the communication sent to the French Episcopal Conference through Cardinal Parolin, which was instead oriented towards dialogue and pastoral sensitivity.

Why it pays to remain cautious

The two readings — that of Silere non possum and that of AdVaticanum — are not reconcilable, but this very distance confirms what I already argued in a previous article: we should be cautious before attributing to the letter of June 29 the value of a definitive pronouncement on the future of the ancient Mass.

The letter, by its very nature, is a text dedicated to general liturgical formation, not a normative document on the discipline of the 1962 Missal. The fact that it cites the same two pontiffs recalled by Traditionis Custodes can be read as a sign of continuity with Francis’s approach, as well as — with equal legitimacy — a simple reminder of the dignity and fidelity in the celebration of the ordinary rite, which concerns almost all Masses celebrated throughout the world.

The way Mass is celebrated in many parishes is becoming increasingly out of control. Priests likely think Mass is “their business,” and so they indulge in it. Father Nicola Bux, a liturgist and former consultant to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in his provocatively titled book, “How to Go to Mass and Not Lose Your Faith”:

During the ordinary rite Mass, the one in Italian, we witness a certain liturgical “creativity” that is almost unbearable, consisting, for example, of displays of rainbow flags, dancing, rock songs, jokes recited by the priest during the homily, Masses celebrated in the sea with a lilo as an altar, leading to the priest who during Mass says “I don’t believe in the Creed”, and so on.

On my blog I published an ironic post featuring a small series of videos which highlighted how the church, a sacred place, is often the subject of expressions that would be better reserved for a profane place, like a nightclub or a theatre (here are the videos).

Doesn’t Silere non possum suspect that these colorful expressions regarding the celebration of Mass or the use of the sacred space of the church probably reached the Pope’s ears and that, therefore, he was issuing an explicit call to fall into line? It should be clear to Silere non possum that the Mass in the Old Order, the so-called Latin or Tridentine Mass, is not the subject of these colorful expressions, which, in all respects, constitute grave abuses or actual acts of liturgical violence.

Added to this is another factor that should be kept in mind: as already noted in my article, the reliability of Roche’s words to The Tablet is itself a matter of debate, given that the cardinal has concluded his five-year term and that some of his technical statements on liturgical matters have been repeatedly challenged by liturgists and canonists. Meanwhile, the concrete gestures of the pontificate — from the audiences granted to cardinals close to the traditional world, to the permission granted to Cardinal Burke to celebrate a papal Mass in the Vatican, to the letter to the Society of Saint Pius X acknowledging the “desire for fidelity to Tradition” of many communities linked to it — paint a more complex and in some ways less resolute picture than Roche’s statements would suggest.

Until Leo XIV himself makes a direct and unequivocal pronouncement on the matter, any interpretation — whether that sees the letter to Roche as confirmation of the restrictive stance or that dismisses it as a mere reference to celebratory dignity — remains an interpretative hypothesis, not a given. Continuing to treat indirect evidence as definitive proof, one way or the other, means exposing oneself to the risk of mistaking, once again, the desire for a conclusion for the conclusion itself.