Traditionis Custodes in Kentucky: The Liturgical Wound Does Not Heal

Context

Bishop William F. Medley of Owensboro (Kentucky) has ordered Father David Kennedy to cease celebrating Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This decision falls under the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, promulgated by Francis on July 16, 2021, which restricted the celebration of the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite and left residual authorizations to the discretion of each diocesan bishop.

The Facts

At the same time, Le Salon Beige published a series of ten questions addressed to priests of the Society of Saint Pius X. The central question concerns the SSPX’s position on post-conciliar sacraments: does the Society still uphold the judgment made by Archbishop Lefebvre during the episcopal consecrations of June 30, 1988, that the new sacraments "are all doubtful"?

In circles close to the Rome-SSPX dialogue, the possibility of a papal gesture before July 1 is being discussed. Rome has not officially confirmed the existence of such an initiative.

Doctrinal Analysis

Traditionis Custodes (2021) presents itself as an act of pastoral governance, not as a doctrinal condemnation of the earlier rite. Summorum Pontificum (Benedict XVI, 2007) had affirmed that the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite "had never been abolished"—and, implicitly, could not be abolished by mere administrative decision. These two texts do not easily reconcile in terms of canon law and liturgical theology.

The question raised by the Kentucky case deserves to be asked clearly: can a bishop prohibit what a Pope had declared impossible to prohibit? The answer depends on the interpretation of the legal status of Traditionis Custodes in relation to Summorum Pontificum. Serious canonists on both sides maintain that the question remains open.

Sacrosanctum Concilium (n. 23) established the principle: "innovations shall only be made if the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them." Sixty years later, the question of whether restricting the extraordinary form has produced the hoped-for unity remains unanswered.

Stakes for the Church and the Faithful

Two simultaneous and contradictory phenomena are at work. On one hand, bishops are applying Traditionis Custodes with a severity not mandated by the text—the motu proprio allows for diocesan discretion, which some prelates interpret in only one way. On the other, traditionalist circles are openly debating their theological stance toward post-conciliar Tradition.

If SSPX priests accept that sacraments celebrated according to the liturgical books of Paul VI are valid and licit—which Rome consistently affirms—canonical reconciliation becomes theologically possible. If some maintain the doubt expressed by Archbishop Lefebvre, the obstacle remains major, and discussions will remain deadlocked.

Critical Reading and Blind Spots

The dossier reveals a tension in post-conciliar Roman governance: Benedict XVI had attempted to resolve the liturgical crisis through the hermeneutic of continuity and the expansion of the extraordinary form. Francis reopened the wound through administrative restriction. Neither approach has resolved the underlying issue.

Continued restriction, enforced by some bishops with greater vigor than Rome requires, deepens mistrust without fostering unity. Liturgical unity cannot be decreed; it is built through mutual trust.

For Reflection and Action

The liturgical crisis will not be resolved by further prohibitions or by the capitulation of one side or the other. It calls for a courageous act of governance that acknowledges, in precise terms, that the two forms of the Roman Rite can coexist peacefully and fruitfully, without this coexistence being interpreted as a repudiation of the Council’s liturgical reform.

On June 30, 2026, an anniversary will be added to the calendar: thirty-eight years after Archbishop Lefebvre’s episcopal consecrations, Catholics attentive to the Church’s unity will have their eyes on this still-open wound.